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.
