Explaining Claims About Tim Walz’s Military Service

WASHINGTON — Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota has faced fresh scrutiny over his military service, and how he has characterized his record, in the weeks since he was selected as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate.

The attacks, spearheaded by his rival for the vice presidency who himself is a veteran, Sen. JD Vance, have dogged him since he first ran for Congress nearly two decades ago. Walz has forcefully defended his time in the Army National Guard.

“I am damn proud of my service to this country,” Walz said this month. “And I firmly believe you should never denigrate another person’s service record.”

Some details of Walz’s service are still unknown and other facts may remain unverifiable. Still, before Walz addresses the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, here’s what we know.

WHAT WAS SAID

“What bothers me about Tim Walz is the stolen valor garbage. Do not pretend to be something that you’re not.” — Vance at a rally in Michigan in August

“How dare @GovTimWalz claim he went to war when he did not. While I am not a combat veteran, I did not dodge service. He’s a coward. This is grossly misleading and, by definition, illegal. Walz never deployed and is falsely claiming he did. This is stolen valor.” — Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., on social media in August

The Trump campaign and other critics have cited a few comments Walz has made as evidence that he has lied about having served in combat.

The Stolen Valor Act makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have received a military valor award for financial gain or for other benefits. There is no evidence that Walz has violated that law.

But colloquially, the term lacks a uniform definition, with veterans and members of the military community differing over what constitutes “stolen valor” in general and whether Walz has crossed that line in particular.

The New York Times interviewed four veterans who specialize in investigating cases of deception about service and who have collectively documented thousands of cases of stolen valor throughout decades of research.

All four said that they do not believe Walz engaged in stolen valor, but that he did misrepresent his record at times or, at the very least, has not always been precise. In comparison, the investigators gave actual examples of stolen valor, such as politicians repeatedly and falsely claiming to have served in wars they had not or earning medals they had not.

Doug Sterner, a military historian widely considered to be a leading researcher of military service claims and who helped draft the Stolen Valor Act, called the criticisms of Walz “politically motivated” and unfair, though he agreed that Walz had misrepresented elements of his service.

Anthony Anderson, a retired Army sergeant who runs the website Guardian of Valor, which chronicles false claims of military service or awards, noted that Walz’s story “is something I wouldn’t even put on my website.” Given that Walz has misspoken and fails to correct the record at times, there is reason to believe that “he is definitely embellishing his record to gain points with the voters,” Anderson said.

But he added, “I wouldn’t consider that stolen valor.”

Here is a rundown of Walz’s references to his service.

A comment about being “in war”

The clearest example of embellishment was a remark Walz made in 2018 saying that he had “carried a weapon of war in war.”

Walz has not been in war, and the Harris campaign has said that he misspoke.

Throughout his political career, Walz has usually said he was “in support” of Operation Enduring Freedom when describing his service. That is the official name for the combat mission in Afghanistan that began in October 2001 and ended December 2014.

Walz’s unit — the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery of the Minnesota Army National Guard — was deployed in 2003 in support of the operation, though he was stationed in Italy, not Afghanistan or the Middle East. (This was not atypical: Of the 45,000 military personnel assigned to the combat mission that fall, less than one-third, or about 10,000, were actually stationed in Afghanistan.)

During Walz’s first congressional race in 2006, a resident wrote to a local newspaper accusing Walz of misleading voters through “artful omission” and wrongly implying he had served in combat. Walz strongly objected, writing to the same newspaper that his campaign website clearly stated that he had served overseas “in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.”

After his election to the House of Representatives, Walz continued to specify that he served “in support” of that combat mission.

Some have noted that Walz has not corrected others when they have referred to him as an “Afghanistan veteran,” a term that may more directly imply being stationed there. For example, on a television program in 2016, the host characterized Walz as a veteran who had served in “Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan,” to which Walz nodded.

A campaign sign

Allies of Trump have also pointed to a sign that Walz held in 2004, while campaigning for John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, that appeared to read, “Enduring Freedom Veterans for Kerry.” A news release issued by Walz’s 2006 congressional campaign also identified him as an “Operation Enduring Freedom veteran.”

So Walz’s sign was not inaccurate. But whether the term “Enduring Freedom veteran” implies being physically present in Afghanistan is open to interpretation.

For example, to be eligible for a license plate bearing those words, residents of Kansas must furnish proof that they received an Afghanistan campaign medal, indicating service in the country, while those in Virginia need only the words “Operation Enduring Freedom” printed on official paperwork.

A Green Beret hat

Additionally, critics have cited Walz repeatedly wearing a baseball cap of a regiment he did not belong to. The cap bearing the insignia of the 1st Special Forces Group was a gift to Walz during a 2008 congressional visit to Afghanistan, the Harris campaign said.

The Times found no evidence that Walz has claimed to be a member of the Special Forces. Neither has Kevin Knapp, a retired Special Forces major who operates Guardians of the Green Beret, a website that looks at claims about serving in the Special Forces.

Knapp said that while he questioned Walz’s decision to continue wearing the gift and that he personally would never wear insignia that he did not earn, he considered the cap a “nonissue” and not an example of stolen valor.

“A lot of people we get contacted about, there’s photographic evidence, tattoos or conversations of ‘I was a Green Beret and I was behind the lines and I did all of this,’ and they never did,” Knapp said, adding that a trail of misrepresentation did not exist in Walz’s case.

WHAT WAS SAID

“Tim Walz claimed to be a command sergeant major, even had it printed on his challenge coins, and he knew he never achieved that rank.” — Vance in a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in August

Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a retired command sergeant major — the highest rank possible for enlisted soldiers — throughout his political career.

While he served at that rank in the last weeks of his National Guard service, Walz was reverted to one rank lower, master sergeant, as he did not complete coursework required. In other words, he served as command sergeant major, but retired as a master sergeant.

The Minnesota National Guard said that Walz was promoted to sergeant major on Sept. 17, 2004 and was appointed command sergeant major on April 1, 2005. He retired on May 16, 2005, but was “administratively reduced” to master sergeant a day earlier.

It is not clear when Walz was officially informed of this change, the spokesperson said. But paperwork obtained by Anderson of Guardian of Valor suggested that his rank was corrected in September 2005, after he had retired.

Regardless, Walz continued to refer to himself as a “command sergeant major,” including in his 2018 campaign for governor and on the Harris campaign website. The campaign has since updated the website to note that he “served,” not “retired,” at that rank. Walz had also issued a congressional coin bearing the insignia of a command sergeant major.

Most stolen valor investigators reached by the Times said Walz’s repeated citations of a higher rank were perhaps the most pernicious of his past remarks.

“That was a choice, an intentional choice that was not a misspoken comment in the excitement of the moment,” Knapp said.

Jeff, a retired Navy corpsman who researches for the website Military Phonies and asked to be identified only by his first name for fear of retribution, said the “retired command sergeant major” references especially stands out because service members are typically aware of the requirements to attain a rank. Walz, he added, chose to not complete his coursework.

While Sterner agreed that Walz had been inaccurate in describing his rank, he suggested that aspects of service, including rank and recognition, can shift after service. He noted he knew of at least a dozen veterans who continued to wear the Silver Star or Distinguished Service Cross decades after their awards were upgraded to the Medal of Honor, adding, “Are you going to go after them?”

Sterner likened Walz to “a fisherman that caught a 21-pound fish that everybody said, ‘No, it was 20 pounds.’ Maybe it lost a pound between the time he caught it and when he got to the weigh station.”

WHAT WAS SAID

“You abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq.” — Vance at the Michigan rally

“Tim Walz TURNED HIS BACK on the soldiers in his unit because he was TOO afraid to deploy to Iraq!!” — Rep. Ronny L. Jackson, R-Texas, in a social media post in August

This claim stems from criticisms over when Walz decided to retire from the National Guard.

Walz served for 24 years, past the 20 years of service required for retirement. (Only 10% of enlisted service members retire; the vast majority discharge from the military before 20 years.)

He enlisted in the Nebraska Army National Guard in April 1981 as an infantryman just days after his 17th birthday, and transferred to the Minnesota Army National Guard in August 1996 with the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery, according to the Minnesota Guard.

Walz filed paperwork declaring his intent to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in February 2005. In March 2005, his campaign released a statement noting that the National Guard had announced “a possible partial mobilization of 2,000 troops” from Minnesota and that it would require all or part of Walz’s battalion to deploy to Iraq within the next two years. Walz said he would stay in the race and serve if called upon.

Walz retired officially on May 16, 2005. It is unknown when he submitted his retirement paperwork, the Minnesota National Guard said, noting that the process varies but approval can take 30 to 120 days.

The unit received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq on July 14, 2005, the Minnesota National Guard said. But it did not receive an official Pentagon mobilization order until August 2005. It mobilized in October 2005 and deployed to Iraq in March 2006.

Members of his battalion previously told the Times that rumors of a possible deployment had begun circulating as Walz considered a run for Congress. Jack Cook, who served in the unit after Walz retired, said in a separate interview that senior members of the command staff knew of potential missions and deployments long before the actual unit notifications went out.

Ultimately, whether Walz submitted his retirement paperwork before the possible deployment announcement is unclear. But he retired after the announcement of a possible deployment, and before an unofficial alert was issued and an official order was received.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times .