I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Today's read: 13 minutes.
ICYMI.
On Friday, we published a members-only deep-dive on our primary election system — how it came to be, its failures, and some of the proposed solutions to fix it. Then, I give “my take” on what reforms I’d support, and how my position has changed. Read the piece here.
Quick hits.
- A new poll from The New York Times/Siena College shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading former President Donald Trump 50-46 in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. (The poll) Separately, Cook Political Report shifted its ratings for Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada from "lean Republican" to "toss-up." (The ratings)
- Former President Donald Trump said his campaign had its emails hacked by Iran. Politico revealed it was receiving internal Trump campaign communications from an anonymous sender but could not confirm the source, while Microsoft said Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps targeted a presidential campaign in June. (The hack)
- Two months after former President Trump promised to eliminate taxes on tips for service workers, Vice President Kamala Harris proposed the same policy. (The proposal)
- Israel ordered more evacuations in southern Gaza the day after an airstrike killed more than 90 people at a school-turned-shelter. Israel said the toll was inflated and 19 militants were among the dead. (The strike).
- The Biden administration has reportedly offered Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his top allies amnesty from drug trafficking charges if Maduro agrees to leave office at the end of his term. The administration denied the report. (The offer)
Today's topic.
Tim Walz’s service record. Over the past week, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, has faced scrutiny over his time in the Army National Guard. Republicans, led by the party’s vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance (OH), allege that Walz has misrepresented his time in the Guard to enhance his political profile, and they question the timing of his retirement.
Walz served in the National Guard for a total of 24 years, enlisting with the Nebraska Army National Guard in 1981 and transferring to the Minnesota Army National Guard in 1996. He served many roles during that time, including infantry senior sergeant, administrative specialist, cannon crewmember, and field artillery senior sergeant. Near the end of his service, he was provisionally promoted to command sergeant major, the highest rank for enlisted soldiers in the military, but retired as a master sergeant after not completing the requisite coursework to retain his rank. His awards at the time of his retirement included an Army Commendation Medal and multiple Army Achievement Medals.
The timing of Walz’s retirement is one of the main sources of scrutiny of his time with the National Guard. In 2005, Walz kicked off his Congressional campaign while still serving in the Guard, and in March of that year stated that he would continue his campaign despite the possibility that his unit would be sent to Iraq. He retired from service in May, and in August, the Department of the Army issued a mobilization order for his unit, which deployed in March 2006. Walz (and some others in his unit) have maintained that they did not know whether they would be deployed at the time Walz retired, but his departure angered others in the Guard, including the command sergeant major who replaced him and went to Iraq. The Minnesota National Guard told Fox News that Walz submitted his retirement papers five to seven months prior to his retirement.
At a news conference on Wednesday, Vance criticized the timing of Walz’s decision. “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, do you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him,” Vance said in comments that were also echoed by former President Donald Trump.
Republicans have resurfaced other questions about Walz’s service, including allegations that he lied about his record. Between 2003 and 2004, Walz served in Italy with the National Guard, providing support to troops during the early stages of the war in Afghanistan but not spending time in any active conflict zones. Still, Walz’s campaign described him as a “veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom” in a press release announcing his candidacy in 2006, which some critics said suggests he served in Afghanistan. Others have highlighted Walz’s comments on gun violence in 2018, when he said, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.” Republicans say this comment implied that Walz served in combat, with some calling it tantamount to “stolen valor.” On Friday, the Harris campaign said that Walz misspoke in those comments.
Finally, Republicans say Walz has inflated his military rank for political benefit, arguing that he improperly characterized himself as retiring as a command sergeant major when he had not completed the coursework to retain that rank at the end of his service. After Vice President Harris announced Walz as her running mate, his biography on her campaign website initially referred to him as a “retired command sergeant major,” but the page was later updated to say that he once served at the command sergeant major rank.
Today, we’ll explore the controversy over Walz’s military record, with perspectives from the left and right. Then, my take.
What the left is saying.
- The left defends Walz but warns Democrats not to ignore the controversy, noting the impact of the “swiftboat” campaign against John Kerry in 2004.
- Some say the attacks on Walz are dishonorable and should be forcefully refuted.
- Others suggest Republicans’ strategy will fall flat.
In The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson wrote “Democrats, sink this swiftboat immediately.”
“The accusation of ‘stolen valor’ leveled against Walz by GOP vice-presidential nominee JD Vance should sound familiar to voters of a certain age. It is the same kind of smarmy innuendo that Republicans used to defame then-Sen. John F. Kerry when he was running to unseat George W. Bush in 2004,” Robinson said. “Vance and other Republicans are now trying to discredit Walz’s 24 years of service in the National Guard. Their claims are that Walz retired from the Guard in 2005 to avoid being sent to fight in Iraq, which is false; that Walz has no right to say he attained the rank of command sergeant major, which is also false; and that Walz was wrong in the past to refer to assault rifles as weapons ‘that I carried in war,’ which Walz should acknowledge and clarify.”
“Democrats should recall that Kerry tried remaining above the fray… But the response was not forceful enough — as evidenced by the fact that ‘swiftboating’ is now a widely used term for the kind of attack Republicans have launched at Walz,” Robinson wrote. “Surely the Harris-Walz team has enough staff, money and brainpower to do two things at once. They should push full speed ahead with a campaign whose huge crowds and joyful enthusiasm have reshaped the presidential contest practically overnight. And they should push back — hard — against the Republicans’ attempt to do to Walz what they did to Kerry.”
In MSNBC, Paul Rieckhoff argued “Tim Walz deserves better than Team Trump's 'stolen valor' smears.”
Walz is “a veteran who cares deeply about the well-being of his fellow veterans. Which is why it’s enraging and sad to watch Ohio senator and fellow veteran JD Vance and Team Trump attempt to smear his military record and accuse him of ‘stolen valor,’” Rieckhoff wrote. “Walz has dedicated his political career to helping other veterans. As the ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, veterans had no finer and more tenacious advocate than Walz. Every veteran service organization and veteran leader knows he is one of our own, and that we could always count on him.”
“The Harris-Walz campaign was clearly not ready for the Swift boat attacks — but they were entirely predictable. Details, military records and validators who know Walz and the truth should have been buttoned up in advance,” Rieckhoff said. “Whether the Swift boat attacks are fair or not, the Harris-Walz campaign should have been more prepared for battle. Failing to plan is planning to fail. Now the campaign (and Walz himself) need to get a plan together, be transparent, clear and forceful, and make up the ground lost.”
In New York Magazine, Ed Kilgore said “the swiftboating of Tim Walz won’t work.”
“The GOP is deploying an old playbook item that Trump campaign co-chair Chris LaCivita knows well from his deep involvement in the ‘Swiftboating’ of John Kerry in 2004: an attack on Walz’s military record, one of his strongest credentials in rebutting the idea he is some sort of anti-American zealot,” Kilgore wrote. “The facts underlying the LaCivita-Vance line of attack don’t appear to justify all the angry passion. No one is disputing that Walz served honorably in the Guard for 24 years… Walz had been talking for quite some time about retiring in order to run for Congress (which is precisely what he did) and that he had no way of knowing about the subsequent deployment when he retired.”
“The attacks on Walz’s military record come across as pretty weak tea. Even the most serious — the claim that he dodged serving in Iraq — requires an asterisk: J.D. Vance’s running mate, Donald Trump, has endlessly described that war as a disastrous mistake,” Kilgore said. “We’re in a different era of American experiences with war. 2.9 million young men were drafted into the U.S. military during the Vietnam War; John Kerry’s service there resonated with a lot of voters. In the post-conscription era, people like Walz and Vance (a public-affairs officer deployed to Iraq) who chose to put on the uniform are the exception rather than the rule.”
What the right is saying.
- The right says the allegations against Walz are merited and deserve answers.
- Some suggest Walz betrayed his unit by choosing not to deploy with them.
- Others say the criticisms are not warranted, and Walz should be thanked for his service.
In The Federalist, Matt Beebe wrote “Tim Walz misrepresented his military service. He needs to answer some questions.”
“As a career politician, Walz has long touted his service in the National Guard, yet this service is only now getting close attention as questions arise about how and where he served,” Beebe said. “There is no question that Walz bailed on his National Guard unit when it was called up for deployment to Iraq. But it also appears that he has been mischaracterizing his military service since at least 2005. The Harris campaign tacitly acknowledged as much by correcting the record this week.”
“A deeper analysis of Walz’s historical campaign messaging reveals that the recent tweaking may not be the first time he’s tried to carefully thread the needle on messaging about his military service, and suggests an intention to mislead voters that runs all the way back to his first campaign for Congress in 2005,” Beebe wrote. “To what extent did this intentional misinformation, spread by his own campaign, skew media coverage? And why did Walz tighten up his messaging after his election victory? These are questions the American public deserve prompt answers to.”
In Newsweek, Dan Hollaway said “to combat veterans like me, Tim Walz's abandonment of his unit is unforgivable.”
Walz “indeed spent 24 years as an enlisted soldier in the Minnesota National Guard. As far as I can tell, he deployed once to Italy and once to Norway. But when it was finally his turn to deploy in the actual Global War on Terror, Walz instead chose his own aspirations over leadership,” Hollaway wrote. “Walz would have been the Battalion Command Sergeant Major, the highest-ranking non-commissioned officer and arguably the most important leader in his unit. And in the moment they needed him most, when they were about to deploy to Iraq, Walz chose to abandon his men to run for Congress.”
“This isn't a leader. This is a man who uses others to further his own ambitions, then discards them when they become inconvenient. He abandoned his men and left the military before completing the school necessary to become a Command Sergeant Major—though this hasn't stopped him from using the title on the Minnesota government site in his bio,” Hollaway said. “Leadership is decisive and accountable. Walz cuts and runs, then lies and hides. In the end, no matter what you hear about Tim Walz, this is the truth: When his men needed him before what would have been his only combat deployment, he was nowhere to be found. He bailed on them to chase political aspirations.”
In Fox News, Adam Kinzinger argued “Tim Walz served his country honorably for 24 years. JD Vance, Trump need to respect that.”
“Following in his father’s footsteps, Tim Walz joined the Army Guard, enlisting just two days after his 17th birthday, when he first became eligible, and served honorably for 24 years, achieving the highest enlisted rank offered. Then, he went on to serve as a champion for veterans and military families in Congress, leading the effort to pass a bipartisan bill to provide mental health services to veterans, leading a bipartisan effort to expand the GI Bill, and repeatedly voting to increase military funding. The nation should be proud, and JD Vance should be respectful of his fellow brother-in-arms.”
“The attacks from anyone, especially Donald Trump, are a disservice not just to Gov. Walz but to anyone who served in uniform,” Kinzinger wrote. “These attacks from the likes of Trump and Vance bode darkly for the future, and we must push back against this with everything we have. Serving in the military is honorable and must be seen as such, regardless of the veteran’s party affiliation. Donald Trump, a draft-dodger, doesn’t come even close to measuring up to Tim Walz and his decades of service to this nation. JD Vance should know better.”
My take.
Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.
- Some of Walz’s statements about his rank and service suggest he inflated his record, which is a legitimate problem.
- Other criticisms about when he retired and if he served overseas are deeply flawed.
- The Trump campaign may not want to center “military service” in this election, but at some point Walz will have to answer these questions.
On this week's Sunday podcast, I did a quick "six pack" of takes before interviewing former Congressman Scott Klug. In one of those takes, I said that I thought these attacks had some legs, that Walz had real questions to answer, and that this could become a problem for him.
Still, I think it's worth separating the wheat from the chaff here. Let me start with the criticisms I think are fair and legitimate:
First, the Trump-Vance campaign is right that Walz has lied to voters — or at the very least misled them — about serving in combat. In the video posted by the Harris campaign of Walz’s stump speech about gun control, Walz says, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.” Any voter listening to that would assume Walz served in combat. He did not. The Harris-Walz campaign has said that he “misspoke,” and Walz himself has openly acknowledged he never went to combat. He was obviously playing up his military experience (in a dishonest way) to land a political talking point.
Second, there is a strong argument that Walz inflated his rank. This one is a little more complicated, since Walz did reach the rank of Command Sergeant Major. But he would have had to serve in that role for three years — and complete months of coursework — to retain that title upon retirement. Still, in at least two clips (one from 2006 and one from 2018), Walz calls himself a retired Command Sergeant Major. The Harris campaign initially referred to him that way, too.
This is plainly inaccurate, as you only refer to veterans by their retired rank, not the highest rank they ever obtained. This is a particularly sensitive protocol to honor in the military community, so while it may not be a huge deal if other people refer to Walz that way (perhaps mistakenly), it is a big deal if Walz or the Harris campaign do. Indeed, John Kolb, the former battalion commander of the unit Walz served in, hammered him on Facebook for using the title, writing “it is an affront to the Noncommissioned Officer Corps that he continues to glom onto the title. I can sit in the cockpit of an airplane, it does not make me a pilot.”
So, those two are a big deal.
The other attacks are a different story. The accusation I've seen most commonly is that Walz abandoned his men before they deployed, leaving them without a leader. This attack line was used against Walz in a previous election, the story has been reported and fact-checked, and there is genuinely no evidence for the claim. Walz served for 24 years and retired to run for Congress, and the retirement process can take months if not years to complete. One national guardsman has claimed that "rumors" of a deployment were circulating before Walz retired, but the paper trail shows Walz filed to run for office a month before those rumors started. Fox News also reported that Walz submitted his retirement papers five to seven months prior to his retirement. The available facts just don’t bear this claim out, and some of Walz’s former service members have defended him against the allegation.
The other weak accusation is that Walz falsely claimed to have served in Afghanistan. In a 2006 press release, Walz calls himself "a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom," even though he was never deployed to Afghanistan. But Walz was deployed to Europe between 2003 and 2004 to support Operation Enduring Freedom, which was a wider operation than what took place in Afghanistan alone. So, again, while it might mislead some voters, I think in this case it's fair for him, as well as all service members deployed on operational support, to describe themselves this way.
Now, will any of these attacks matter? On the one hand, plenty of swing voters are also military veterans, and there aren't many things more offensive to veterans than stolen valor. On the other hand, I'm not so sure the Trump-Vance campaign wants to center military service in this race, given Trump's history of dodging the draft and his tenuous relationship with some military leaders (I’m sure the Harris campaign is teeing up the comebacks already).
Still, I happen to think these attacks are going to stick. Walz has clearly misled people about his service, and while he and Harris are soaking up the glow of a campaign restart, eventually they are going to have to sit for adversarial interviews and take the debate stage. And when they do, Walz will need to have good answers for the way he has described his military service.
It took a few weeks for the Trump-Vance campaign to organize after Biden dropped out, but now it seems centered on its new opponent. These are the kind of attacks I'd expect a focused campaign to levy against a quickly vetted running mate.
Take the survey: What do you think of Tim Walz’s military service record? Let us know!
Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.
Help share Tangle.
I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!
- Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.
Your questions, answered.
Q: You've stated (proudly if I may say so) on a number of occasions your credentials as a free speech absolutist. Do the riots in England triggered by all kinds of misinformation and outright calls to violence give you the tiniest of pause? There are many other examples, like people being lynched by mobs in India or Bangladesh because of falsehoods that were spread online. Is there any line you'd draw? I've struggled with this for some time.
— Vivek from La Honda, CA
Tangle: For those not in the loop, there have been riots and demonstrations in the UK over the past week in response to the killing of three young British girls in Southport, England. Very quickly, news spread that the killer was a Muslim migrant, leading to destruction and threats against Mosques in Southport and then across the country. The killer, however, was a second-generation English citizen, not a Muslim or a migrant.
To answer your question directly: Of course stories like this give me pause. If they didn’t, then I wouldn’t be a person critically considering his own worldview. But events like this also consistently fail to change my position.
First, when I say I’m a “free-speech absolutist,” I’m making a statement both about our law and our culture. Primarily, my belief is that we shouldn’t allow the government to limit speech. Secondarily, I think we should promote a society where we don’t shirk away from ideas we hate or “cancel” the people speaking them, as doing so often gives those ideas more subversive power.
Instead, we should confront ideas we find challenging or dangerous with more speech. In the UK, I would push others to counter the online misinformation with two salient facts: One, the killer was not a Muslim or a migrant, so attacking Muslims is an unconnected response. Two, even if the killer had been either of those things, attacking all Muslims or all migrants is still an unconnected response. Every community has bad actors, but we shouldn’t hold entire subpopulations of people responsible for their crimes.
Even as a “free-speech absolutist,” I acknowledge there are limits to free speech. My rights end where they start to infringe on the rights of another. Calls to violence and stoking racism can and should be restricted both in online forums and within a lawful society. I’m also an “absolutist” as a reporter, in the sense that I would not censor newsworthy statements. But as a citizen, I acknowledge that some speech can indeed be unlawful.
If you are interested in this topic, you might find this interview I did with Grace Lavery interesting.
Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.
Under the radar.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s third-party bid appears to be hurting Trump more than Harris, polling data consistently shows. The Trump campaign elevated Kennedy early in his campaign, believing he’d be a foil for Democrats. But over time, it became clear that Kennedy pulled significantly more votes from Trump than Biden. With Harris atop the ticket, the data is even more pronounced: A half-dozen polls have all shown that Harris leads Trump by an average of 1.5 points in head-to-head match-ups, but her lead grows to 3.3 points in a crowded race including Kennedy. The Washington Post has the story.
Numbers.
- 24 to 36. The number of months the U.S. Army recommends service members begin planning for retirement before their intended retirement date.
- 90. The approximate number of days it takes the National Guard to process retirement requests, according to Major General Randy E. Manner, Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
- 35. The number of days between Tim Walz filing his paperwork to run for Congress with the Federal Election Commission and the National Guard’s announcement of a possible partial mobilization of 2,000 troops to Iraq.
- 60. The number of days between the National Guard’s announcement of a possible partial mobilization and Walz’s last day with the National Guard.
- 59. The number of days between Walz’s last day with the National Guard and his unit officially receiving their orders to deploy to Iraq.
- 1. The number of service members from Walz’s unit (1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery) who were killed in combat in Iraq, according to the Minnesota National Guard.
The extras.
- One year ago today we had just written about Biden’s controversial national monument.
- The most clicked link in Thursday’s newsletter was Tim Walz’s disputed military record.
- Nothing to do with politics: Hurricane Debby blew about $1 million of cocaine onto a Florida beach.
- Thursday’s survey: 1,255 readers responded to our survey asking about the IOC allowing boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting to compete in the women’s division with 64% calling the decision fair. “Based on what little factual evidence has been made available and my admittedly very limited knowledge of IOC rules, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point and say they were fair, but I think their rules need to be updated toot-sweet,” one respondent said.
Have a nice day.
Research has found a positive correlation between volunteering in the community and increased positive emotions, less loneliness and greater social support, according to Eric Kim, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia Vancouver. Jeff Kellert, a retiree who now volunteers at local organizations for about 30 hours a week, said he feels the effects. “Together with a good sense of self-esteem and self-confidence — I feel like I’m doing something productive,” Kellert said. AP News has the story.
Don't forget...
📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.
🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here
💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.
🎉 Want to reach 120,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.
📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).
🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!
