In a recent CNN interview, Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance took issue with the network’s portrayal of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s military retirement. Vance argued that Walz was aware of his unit’s potential deployment to Iraq when he decided to leave the National Guard, contradicting Walz’s previous claims.

Vance referenced a CNN segment from the night before, where one of Walz’s former superiors stated they knew about the Iraq deployment in fall 2004. “So, he knew he was going to Iraq, he decided to quit, to retire, whatever word you want to use,” Vance asserted.

The Ohio senator accused Walz of dishonesty, saying, “He lied about that. He said that when he decided to retire, he did not know he was going to Iraq. That is another untruth, as even his senior military officer said.”

This controversy stems from Walz’s 2005 congressional campaign. A press release from that time mentioned a possible deployment for Walz’s unit, yet he retired shortly after filing to run for office. Vance suggested that Walz left the military to pursue his political career, despite knowing his unit might be deployed.

Vance emphasized that his criticism was not of Walz’s service itself, but of his truthfulness about the retirement circumstances. This debate has also reignited questions about Walz’s military record, including previous reports suggesting he may have overstated his rank at retirement.

As the 2024 election approaches, this exchange underscores the intense scrutiny facing candidates’ backgrounds and the role of media in vetting public figures. Vance’s pushback against CNN’s framing reflects growing conservative frustration with perceived media bias in covering political controversies.

This debate is likely to fuel further discussions about the media’s responsibility in presenting accurate information to the public and the challenges of verifying candidates’ past claims.