Tim Walz Is Against Unaccountable Wars—but He Voted To Fund Them Anyways
While the former congressman cares a lot about war powers, he has often flip-flopped on actually enforcing Congress’ red lines.

The year was 2007, the Iraq War was in full swing, and Congress was struggling to exercise its oversight. Despite a Democratic blowout in the midterm elections driven by public opposition to the war, then-president George W. Bush wanted to "surge" thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq. Democrats proposed a resolution condemning the plan.
A freshman representative from Minnesota, a retired Army master sergeant named Tim Walz, stood up in support of the resolution. "Some have said that this debate sends a message to our enemies, and I would agree. The message our enemies are hearing this week is that democracy in America is alive and well," he said. "The geniuses of the founders of this country are on display right now," Walz added, praising Congress' constitutional role in overseeing war.
Walz is now governor of Minnesota—and on Tuesday, he became the Democratic candidate for vice president. Picking him could be a sign that a future Harris administration might exercise more foreign policy restraint; Vice President Kamala Harris' national security adviser, Phil Gordon, has also built a public profile around learning from the mistakes of regime change campaigns, such as the Iraq War.
For all his strong feelings about war powers, however, Walz has also shown a tendency to shrink from tough political fights on the issue. During the debate over the surge, Walz voted to force the U.S. military to withdraw from Iraq within 90 days. Yet less than five months later, he voted to continue funding the war. It was a position that put him at odds with a majority of his Democratic colleagues.
"In my district I wasn't hearing [during the campaign] an overall cry that the troops have to out by midnight tomorrow," Walz told NBC News. "My fear is if the pullback of troops was either delayed or sped up based on politics, that that's dangerous."
A similar pattern unfolded throughout Walz's congressional career. According to voting records compiled by Peace Action, an antiwar advocacy group, Walz often voted to repeal the War on Terror-era authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs), while also voting against restrictions or cuts to military funding.
When war broke out with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, then-president Barack Obama asked Congress for a new AUMF. The bill authorized war but excluded "enduring offensive ground combat operations" against the Islamic State and "associated forces" for a three-year period. Walz thought it was a good compromise option.
"The president is trying to get a fine line between not tying his hands and recognizing the fact that Americans, I would say rightfully so, are worried about open-ended conflicts," Walz told the Mankato Free Press, a local newspaper.
When that bill failed, the Obama administration claimed that the war was authorized anyways under the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda and the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. Walz continued to push for war powers reform—and against any congressional enforcement of those reforms.
For example, in May 2016, Walz voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF. The following month, he voted against a bill that would put an expiration date on war funding under the 2001 AUMF and against another bill that would defund military operations in Iraq and Syria unless a new AUMF could be passed.
This middle-of-the-road stance continued under former president Donald Trump. In 2017, after Trump ordered airstrikes against the Syrian government for using chemical weapons against civilians, Walz stated that the bombing was "clearly warranted," even though "any further military action" needs permission from Congress, "especially if it may risk putting more of our men and women in uniform into harm's way."
Walz left Congress in 2019, and hasn't had to deal with many foreign policy issues as governor of Minnesota—with the notable exception of the war in Gaza. He condemned the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, endorsed the general idea of a ceasefire in March 2024, and praised pro-Palestinian protests for being "civically engaged." None of these statements suggest that he'll take a hard line in any direction.
As a member of Congress and a governor, Walz has been able to play the moderate, showing skepticism of war without aggressively fighting to stop it. As a candidate for the White House, he won't be able demur as easily. The man who started his career praising restraints on the president may soon have those principles put to the test.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Poor @JoshShapiroPA. Stitched his foreskin back on for nothing
Not even a cabinet post?
Walz’s politically motivated opposition to one past conflict will have zero influence on any Democratic interventionism.
Just wait until the Democrats unionize the “workers” in the US Army.
Flashback: “Suppose they gave a war, and no one came?”
He quit the national guard when his unit got called up in 2005.
Kamala’s running mate Tim Walz said, “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.”
No.
One person’s socialism is another person’s oppression.
Well, taking all your stuff at the point of a gun is just being neighborly, after all.
He didn’t say they were good neighbors.
Tim Walz is running on the democrat ticket.
Therefore he has no foreign policy position.
The only mention of foreign policy is in the preamble; there is no specific section on foreign policy, which I guess is a position of it’s own.
For what it’s worth:
“We commit to a foreign policy that accelerates our domestic renewal, not undermines it. We will focus on what matters most to Americans—more and better jobs, greater security, a cleaner environment, and a more inclusive and resilient society. Democrats will lead with diplomacy as our tool of first resort and mobilize our allies and partners to meet the tests none of us can meet on our own. We will stand up to the forces of authoritarianism, not aid and abet their rise, and we will speak and act with clarity and purpose on behalf of human rights wherever they are under threat. And we will honor our sacred covenant with our women and men in uniform, our veterans, and our military families who have carried the burdens of wars that must—at long last—come to an end.”
(the only way just one side can end a war is to surrender)
To save the outraged a few moments, my source:
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
Breaking now: Google ruled an illegal monopoly.
or…breaking last night…
Google hid it on their engine until today.
Fucking Reason, always riding Republicans but never criticizing Democrats.
Now that you’ve posted this for the eleventy-billionth time, I see you were right all along. Thanks sarc!
He out of “ideas”.
The idea that this team represents anything other than the complete and utter capitulation to craven political pandering is wishful thinking.
Reason did this with that embarrassment of an article suggesting that Harris was somehow preferable on the War on Drugs. Find any political issue of the day and you will find these two on whichever side increased their political chances. Kamala was a machine democrat, chewing up blacks and throwing them in prison when it helped her ascend to power in California. She suddenly decided she was pro-MJ-legalization when she could co-author lame-duck legislation that would never pass. Walz stood up at the height of the Iraq war’s unpopularity to get his Me Too moment claiming to have a backbone, only to happily sign on to spending after spending.
These analyses being put out by Reason are laughable on their face. These two craven, vote-chasers have no principles. They have no moral foundation. Trying to pretend that there is some underlying philosophy guiding their policy pablum is like trying to find out which dog entrails best describe tomorrow’s stock market. It is a waste of the author’s time and an insult to the intelligence of its readers.
You’re right on Harris and Walz.
But why the Reason bashing? To me Petti’s article is making exactly your point, in slightly more polite language.
Because it annoys me to see them “politely” skip past the obvious.
“For all his strong feelings about war powers, however, Walz has also shown a tendency to shrink from tough political fights on the issue.”
That quote implies that Walz has a moral foundation- that he wants to take a stand, but that he “shrinks” from that position. This assumption is plainly and obviously untrue, and it is an insult to readers to attempt to go through his wishy-washy, politically opportunistic career to find some sort of rhyme or reason to his votes when no such rhyme or reason exists. He is clearly a political opportunist who knows that talk is cheap, and will never back it up with any meaningful legislative record. He is a machine politician, just like Harris.
Let’s note that the key evidence Petti could find that Walz is skeptical about War Inc was when he was making anti-Iraq war speeches along with 90% of the disingenuous Democrat Hacks at the top of the Iraq War’s unpopularity. Again, to me, that isn’t a demonstration of moral fortitude- it is a demonstration that Walz is willing to make these statements whenever he doesn’t have to back it up with action. Just as Harris went from tough-on-crime black-jailer to spokesperson for MJ-reform. These people aren’t “shrinking” from doing what’s right. They have no interest in it, unless it happens to win them votes or the favor of their statist benefactors.
OK I see your complaint – Petti is suggesting with insufficient evidence that somehow, deep-down, Walz is against unjustified wars. You’re pointing out that the evidence is he’s nothing more than a phony.
Petti’s criticism is still somewhat severe: “shrinking” from doing what’s right doesn’t strike me as a compliment, or even a mitigation. To me it sounds worse than not having much of an opinion to begin with.
Today’s headlines:
Harris:
Trump:
And last but not least, for the current leader of the free world, Biden:
Raz0rfist’s take.
“My 401k is feeling decidedly unburdened by what has been”
Walz isn’t a candidate for the White House, he’s a candidate for the United States Naval Observatory. Harris will decide on foreign policy. Just a nitpick; the way things go he’ll be a candidate for the White House in an election or two.
Huh, hearing about this Jamie Raskin thing. To be fair, Reason’s top staff agree that Trump did in fact engage in an insurrection.
Binion’s on the Raskin is Right! piece right this minute
Some local news:
https://myrgv.com/local-news/2024/07/12/feds-seeking-to-condemn-1039-acres-in-starr-county-for-border-wall/
Shortly after Biden was inaugurated he made a big show of halting construction the border wall, and stopping the seizure of land through eminent domain.
Now the Biden administration has resumed using eminent domain to build more wall, ruining family farms and reneging on prior legal settlements in the process. Who knows what the motivation is, perhaps a pathetically hopeless attempt to appease immigration hardliners. None of the arguments he made against the wall back in 2020-2021 have changed.
In case any of you have doubts, we “open border extremists” are 100% as disgusted with Biden as with Trump. His asylum policy is the worst of both worlds, neither granting nor denying but leaving things in limbo for months or years. The correct policy is to make the damn decision quickly on each applicant and get it over with.
Contrary to popular belief, he’s doing plenty of deportations and raids on employers; one of our most famous restaurant chains here just got raided. The constitutionally questionable internal checkpoints and roadblocks that mostly stop citizens are being expanded. They are used as an opportunity to search Americans for drugs in what would normally be an open-and-shut 4th Amendment violation.
Multiple news stories about people being caught with contraband going South during exit searches at the border. What exactly is the compelling justification for doing exit searches without individualized suspicion? Is illegal porn or heroin somehow more harmful when you’re leaving?
And now he’s doing the border wall too. Everyday more reasons to double down on Chase Oliver.
What exactly is the compelling justification for doing exit searches without individualized suspicion?
Money. They can claim that the money was obtained illegally and take it. They’ve got no interest in stopping crime. They just want to rob people.
A while back Reason did a story about some highway where drugs go north and money goes south. Guess which direction the cops let flow freely, and which direction they stopped people?
What exactly is the compelling justification for doing exit searches without individualized suspicion? Is illegal porn or heroin somehow more harmful when you’re leaving?
My border protects you, your border protects me, but my border doesn’t protect me and your border doesn’t protect you.
>>justification for doing exit searches without individualized suspicion?
fast & furious still operational.
>>a retired Army master sergeant named Tim Walz, stood up in support of the resolution.
the ironing is thick … you should have inserted a (2005, on verge of deployment) after “sergeant”
Only fitting that the Leftist Warmonger would pick another Leftist Warmonger.
A warmonger who quit when his unit got called up.
Actually fighting the wars is for other people, just like paying for the spending they demand.
“Voted To Fund Them Anyways”
“Anyways”… is Petti 10 years old? Does Reason employ editors, i.e. people who do copy editing?