Here’s a look at questions about Tim Walz’s military record

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, with Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 09 August 2024
Follow

Here’s a look at questions about Tim Walz’s military record

CINCINNATI: Republicans are questioning Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s military record after Vice President Kamala Harris named him as her running mate this week.
Here’s a look at the issue:

He retired before his unit’s deployment to Iraq
Walz served a total of 24 years in various units and jobs in the Army National Guard. But it’s his retirement in 2005 that’s prompting criticism from some Republicans who are suggesting he abandoned his team to pursue a campaign for Congress.
As he ramped up for a congressional bid in 2005, Walz’s campaign in March issued a statement saying he still planned to run despite a possible mobilization of Minnesota National Guard soldiers to Iraq. According to the Guard, Walz retired from service in May of that year.
In August 2005, the Department of the Army issued a mobilization order for Walz’s unit. The unit mobilized in October of that year before it deployed to Iraq in March 2006.
There is no evidence that Walz timed his departure with the intent of avoiding deployment. But the fact remains that he left ahead of his unit’s departure. In a statement, the Harris campaign pushed back on GOP characterizations of Walz’s service, and also noted that he advocated for veterans once he was elected to the US House.
“After 24 years of military service, Governor Walz retired in 2005 and ran for Congress, where he chaired Veterans Affairs and was a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform — and as Vice President of the United States he will continue to be a relentless champion for our veterans and military families,” the campaign said.
Before leaving Detroit, where she and Walz played up their support for organized labor, Harris on Thursday responded to a question about the criticism of her running mate’s record.
“Listen, I praise anyone who has presented themselves to serve our country,” she said. “And I think that we all should.”

Walz didn’t serve in a combat zone
Earlier this week Harris’ campaign circulated on X a 2018 clip of Walz speaking out against gun violence, and saying, “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” That comment suggests that Walz portrayed himself as someone who spent time in a combat zone.
According to the Nebraska Army National Guard, Walz enlisted in April 1981 — just two days after his 17th birthday — and entered service as an infantryman, completing a 12-week Army infantry basic training course before graduating from high school.
While attending the University of Houston in 1985, he was reclassified as a field artillery cannoneer as a member of the Texas Army National Guard, later serving as an instructor with the Arkansas Army National Guard.
In 1987, Walz returned to Nebraska’s Guard detachment, continuing field artillery assignments while he completed a college degree. By 1996, he transferred to the Minnesota Army National Guard. In 2003, he deployed to Italy in a support position of active military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he was not in a combat zone himself.
“Do not pretend to be something that you’re not,” Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance said Wednesday as he campaigned in Michigan. “I’d be ashamed if I was saying that I lied about my military service like you did.”
Vance enlisted in the Marine Corps after graduating high school, serving four years as a combat correspondent, a type of military journalist, and deploying to Iraq in that capacity in 2005.
Neither Trump nor Harris has served in the US military. Trump received a series of deferments during Vietnam, including one attained with a physician’s letter stating that he suffered from bone spurs in his feet.
The Harris campaign statement said Walz “would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country” and “thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It’s the American way.”

What about his rank?
Harris’ campaign has referred to Walz as a “retired Command Sergeant Major,” one of the top ranks for an enlisted soldier. He did in fact achieve that rank, but personnel files show he was reduced in rank months after retiring. That left him as a master sergeant for benefits purposes.
Minnesota National Guard officials have said that Walz retired before completing coursework at the US Army Sergeants Major Academy, along with other requirements associated with his promotion.


US vaccine advisers say not all babies need a hepatitis B shot at birth

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

US vaccine advisers say not all babies need a hepatitis B shot at birth

  • Vaccine advisers named by Kennedy reverse decades-long recommendation
  • Kennedy’s advisory committee decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive
  • President Donald Trump posted a message calling the vote a “very good decision”

NEW YORK: A federal vaccine advisory committee voted on Friday to end the longstanding recommendation that all US babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born.
A loud chorus of medical and public health leaders decried the actions of the panel, whose current members were all appointed by US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before this year becoming the nation’s top health official.
“This is the group that can’t shoot straight,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with ACIP and its workgroups.
Several medical societies and state health departments said they would continue to recommend them. While people may have to check their policies, the trade group AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, said its members still will cover the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.
For decades, the government has advised that all babies be vaccinated against the liver infection right after birth. The shots are widely considered to be a public health success for preventing thousands of illnesses.
But Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive, and in cases where the mom wasn’t tested.
For other babies, it will be up to the parents and their doctors to decide if a birth dose is appropriate. The committee voted 8-3 to suggest that when a family elects to wait, then the vaccination series should begin when the child is 2 months old.
President Donald Trump posted a message late Friday calling the vote a “very good decision.”

The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O’Neill, is expected to decide later whether to accept the committee’s recommendation.
The decision marks a return to a health strategy abandoned more than three decades ago
Asked why the newly-appointed committee moved quickly to reexamine the recommendation, committee member Vicky Pebsworth on Thursday cited “pressure from stakeholder groups,” without naming them.
Committee members said the risk of infection for most babies is very low and that earlier research that found the shots were safe for infants was inadequate.
They also worried that in many cases, doctors and nurses don’t have full conversations with parents about the pros and cons of the birth-dose vaccination.
The committee members voiced interest in hearing the input from public health and medical professionals, but chose to ignore the experts’ repeated pleas to leave the recommendations alone.
The committee gives advice to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors almost always adopted the committee’s recommendations, which were widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. But the agency currently has no director, leaving acting director O’Neill to decide.
In June, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.
Hepatitis B and delaying birth doses
Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that, for most people, lasts less than six months. But for some, especially infants and children, it can become a long-lasting problem that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer and scarring called cirrhosis.
In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during injection drug use. But it can also be passed from an infected mother to a baby.
In 1991, the committee recommended an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Experts say quick immunization is crucial to prevent infection from taking root. And, indeed, cases in children have plummeted.
Still, several members of Kennedy’s committee voiced discomfort with vaccinating all newborns. They argued that past safety studies of the vaccine in newborns were limited and it’s possible that larger, long-term studies could uncover a problem with the birth dose.
But two members said they saw no documented evidence of harm from the birth doses and suggested concern was based on speculation.
Three panel members asked about the scientific basis for saying that the first dose could be delayed for two months for many babies.
“This is unconscionable,” said committee member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who repeatedly voiced opposition to the proposal during the sometimes-heated two-day meeting.
The committee’s chair, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, said two months was chosen as a point where infants had matured beyond the neonatal stage. Hibbeln countered that there was no data presented that two months is an appropriate cut-off.
Dr. Cody Meissner also questioned a second proposal — which passed 6-4 — that said parents consider talking to pediatricians about blood tests meant to measure whether hep B shots have created protective antibodies.
Such testing is not standard pediatric practice after vaccination. Proponents said it could be a new way to see if fewer shots are adequate.
A CDC hepatitis expert, Adam Langer, said results could vary from child to child and would be an erratic way to assess if fewer doses work. He also noted there’s no good evidence that three shots pose harm to kids.
Meissner attacked the proposal, saying the language “is kind of making things up.”
Health experts say this could ‘make America sicker’
Health experts have noted Kennedy’s hand-picked committee is focused on the pros and cons of shots for the individual getting vaccinated, and has turned away from seeing vaccinations as a way to stop the spread of preventable diseases among the public.
The second proposal “is right at the center of this paradox,” said committee member Dr. Robert Malone.
Some observers criticized the meeting, noting recent changes in how they are conducted. CDC scientists no longer present vaccine safety and effectiveness data to the committee. Instead, people who have been prominent voices in anti-vaccine circles were given those slots.
The committee “is no longer a legitimate scientific body,” said Elizabeth Jacobs, a member of Defend Public Health, an advocacy group of researchers and others that has opposed Trump administration health policies. She described the meeting this week as “an epidemiological crime scene.”
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a liver doctor who chairs the Senate health committee, called the committee’s vote on the hepatitis B vaccine “a mistake.”
“This makes America sicker,” he said, in a post on social media.
The committee heard a 90-minute presentation from Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has worked with Kennedy on vaccine litigation. He ended by saying that he believes there should no ACIP vaccine recommendations at all.
In a lengthy response, Meissner said, “What you have said is a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts.” He ended by saying Siri should not have been invited.
The meeting’s organizers said they invited Siri as well as a few vaccine researchers — who have been vocal defenders of immunizations — to discuss the vaccine schedule. They named two: Dr. Peter Hotez, who said he declined, and Dr. Paul Offit, who said he didn’t remember being asked but would have declined anyway.
Hotez, of the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, declined to present before the group “because ACIP appears to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.