Follow us on social

google cta
Harris picks Walz, a midwesterner with antiwar credentials

Harris picks Walz, a midwesterner with antiwar credentials

It appears the VP recognized that Gov. Shapiro, who criticized Israel-Gaza protesters, would divide Democrats

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Vice President Kamala Harris has selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate.

Harris’s decision followed a period of intense lobbying on behalf of several candidates, including the other finalist, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Of the two, Walz was the preferred candidate of many progressives and labor organizations, and he had a record of military and public service in the Army National Guard and Congress before he was elected to his current position. He has served as governor of Minnesota since 2019. Walz is more progressive than Shapiro, but his selection appears to face little resistance from any major constituency within the party.

Spurning the calls of Democratic centrists to pick Shapiro, Harris seems to have heeded warnings from progressives that adding Shapiro to the ticket would fracture party unity because of his attacks on protesters opposed to the war in Gaza and his earlier support for anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) laws. If that is right, it seems that foreign policy-related issues played an indirect role in Walz’s selection in that Shapiro had become too controversial a choice because of his derision for campus protesters.

Walz didn’t have a lot to say about the protests, but he showed much greater respect for antiwar demonstrators when he did: “We've got to bring these people back in and listen to what they're saying. Take them seriously.” He also expressed sympathy with Jewish students and said when they are “telling us they feel unsafe, we need to believe them and I do believe them.”

And Walz appeared to express understanding about the sizable "uncommitted" vote in Minnesota's Democratic primary from those opposing Biden's Gaza policy, saying, “They are asking to be heard and that’s what they should be doing. ...Their message is clear that they think this is an intolerable situation and that we can do more.”

Walz has some foreign policy experience from his time as a House member. He was first elected to Congress in 2006 running on opposition to the Iraq war, and voted for withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2007. Breaking with the Obama administration in 2013, he opposed military action in Syria over the “red line” episode. In 2017, Walz was an early co-sponsor of one of the first House war powers resolutions directing the president to remove U.S. forces from involvement in the Saudi coalition war on Yemen.

On the other hand, Walz initially said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the 2011 intervention in Libya in its first weeks, but added that “I think our engagement needs to be very narrow, it needs to be very defined and it needs to have a clear out time.” Walz seems to be generally skeptical of military intervention, but he has not opposed intervention in every case.

On Israel and Palestine, Walz has taken conventional Democratic positions throughout his career. He has expressed support for a two-state solution and a ceasefire in Gaza (mentioned one time in March), and like most members of Congress, he consistently voted for aid for Israel when he was in the House.

He has also supported U.S. diplomatic initiatives elsewhere in the region. One of his more notable votes in Congress was in support of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. He said that the agreement was the “best chance we have had in years to halt the Iranian nuclear program.”

Adding Walz to the ticket gives Harris a seasoned running mate with some real antiwar credentials. How much Walz will influence Harris’s own foreign policy views remains to be seen, but on many of the important foreign policy issues of the last two decades Walz has been on the side of diplomacy rather than war.


Minnesota Governor Tim Walz speaks to the press after attending a meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden and other Democratic governors at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 3, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo

google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump $1.5 trillion
Top image credit: Richard Peterson via shutterstock.com

The reality of Trump’s cartoonish $1.5 trillion DOD budget proposal

Military Industrial Complex

After promising on the campaign trail that he would drive the war profiteers out of Washington, and appointing Elon Musk to trim the size of government across the board, some will be surprised at President Trump’s social media post on Wednesday that the U.S. should raise the Pentagon budget to $1.5 trillion. That would mean an unprecedented increase in military spending, aside from the buildup for World War II.

The proposal is absurd on the face of it, and it’s extremely unlikely that it is the product of a careful assessment of U.S. defense needs going forward. The plan would also add $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget.

keep readingShow less
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Trump's sphere of influence gambit is sloppy, self-sabotage

Latin America

Spheres of influence stem from the very nature of states and international relations. States will always seek to secure their interests by exerting influence over their neighbors, and the more powerful the state, the greater the influence that it will seek.

That said, sphere of influence strategies vary greatly, on spectrums between relative moderation and excess, humanity and cruelty, discreet pressure and open intimidation, and intelligence and stupidity; and the present policies of the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere show disturbing signs of inclining towards the latter.

keep readingShow less
 Ngo Dinh Diem assassination
Top photo credit: Newspaper coverage of the coup and deaths, later ruled assassination of Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. (Los Angeles Times)

JFK oversaw Vietnam decapitation. He didn't live to witness the rest.

Washington Politics

American presidents have never been shy about unseating foreign heads of state, by either overt or covert means. Since the late 19th century, our leaders have deposed, or tried to depose their counterparts in Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and elsewhere.

Our presidents indulge in regime change when they perceive foreign leaders as inimical to U.S. security or corporate interests. But such efforts can backfire. The 1961 attempt to topple Fidel Castro, organized under President Eisenhower and executed under President Kennedy, led to a slaughter of CIA-trained invasion forces at the Bay of Pigs and a triumph for Castro’s communist government. Despite being driven from power by President George W. Bush in retribution for the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban roared back in 2023, again making Afghanistan a haven for terrorist groups.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.