Tim Walz Keeps Lying
About IVF, his military service, and more.

For Tim Walz, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a deeply personal issue—or at least he made it seem that way. In several recent interviews, the Minnesota governor and Democratic vice presidential candidate implied or outright suggested that his own two children were conceived using IVF.
One problem: It's not true. Walz's children were conceived using intrauterine insemination (IUI), not IVF. These are two very different things, and the policy conversations about them are fundamentally distinct; many religious conservatives want to prohibit IVF—which can result in the destruction of unused fertilized embryos outside the womb—but not IUI.
Yet Walz tried to link his own personal experience with potential efforts by Republicans to ban IVF. This is misleading, since he and his wife used IUI, not IVF.
It was an oft-repeated error. On Facebook, Walz wrote that his family had taken advantage of reproductive health care options like IVF, which is true enough. But then he told the Pod Save America podcast that his two kids were born "that way," in reference to IVF. Worse still, on MSNBC, he flatly stated: "Thank God for IVF, my wife and I have two beautiful children."
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
It makes sense that some people who have little familiarity with either procedure use IVF as shorthand for both. But Walz should have a more granular understanding of what they involve. Moreover, he has accused his opponents of wanting to ban IVF. Walz attacked his rival, Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, saying: "If it were up to him, I wouldn't have a family, because of IVF, and the things that we need to do reproductively."
In June, Vance joined most other Senate Republicans to block a bill that would have made access to IVF a protected right nationwide. Republicans offered a counter bill that would have discouraged states from banning IVF; Democrats blocked that one. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether IVF is in danger of being prohibited under a Trump-Vance administration—but again, this is entirely separate from IUI.
Service Record
Walz is no stranger to making exaggerations. He also misrepresented his military service, indirectly implying that he saw combat while stationed overseas in the National Guard. In 2018, Walz spoke favorably of gun control initiatives, saying: "We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at."
One might have assumed, based on those remarks, that Walz carried weapons in an actual war zone, but no: He never served in combat. During the Afghanistan War, Walz was deployed to Italy and served in a support role. When referred to by others as an "Afghanistan veteran" and a veteran who served in "Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan," he offered no correction, according to The New York Times. He also claimed to have retired from active service as a command sergeant major; his actual rank upon retirement was one level lower.
Republicans have said these misstatements amount to "stolen valor." In the scheme of things, they are not the most egregious war-related exaggerations ever told by a major political figure. Hillary Clinton once said that her airplane came under sniper fire while landing in Bosnia, a claim that received four Pinocchios from The Washington Post. President Joe Biden has frequently stated that his son Beau Biden died in Iraq. (Beau died of a brain tumor, and his proximity to a burn pit while serving in Baghdad, Iraq, could be the proximate cause; he died in a U.S. hospital around six years after his deployment, however.)
But it's important to demand frank honesty from those seeking higher office, and the media should not let politicians off the hook for even slightly embellishing the truth. Kudos to The New York Times, for instance, for very closely scrutinizing Walz's military record and statements.
Unfortunately, proper media scrutiny of his IVF comments only materialized after countless articles had already been written that praised him for making IVF central to his identity as a political actor. At a bare minimum, those need to be corrected.
Reckless Conduct
The best major media exposé on Walz's incautious truth telling came from CNN's Andrew Kaczynski, who revealed that Walz repeatedly lied about his 1995 arrest for drunk driving when he ran for Congress a decade later.
Walz was stopped for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone and admitted to police that he had been drinking. His blood alcohol level was .128.
"But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard," wrote Kaczynski. "The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night. None of that was true."
These were direct lies, and there's no excuse for them.
This Week on Free Media
We are actually taking the next two weeks off, but I'll be back with Amber Duke in September. There's much more Free Media to come!
In the meantime, my Rising co-host Jessica Burbank and I received an on-the-ground report from Amber Duke concerning events at the Democratic National Convention. Watch here.
Worth Watching
I finally, at long last, had time to start watching The Boys on Amazon Prime. My friends have been telling me for years that I'd love this show, which is about a team of vigilantes working to take down the planet's biggest superheroes. That's because the superheroes are actually very bad people; Exhibit A is Homelander, an ostensible Superman-type figure who is secretly a violent, megalomaniacal psychopath.
I'm two episodes in, and, yes, I'm hooked. I highly recommend it.
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
These are needlessly pedantic complaints.
“I support IVF because I’ve been there and know what it means.”
or
“I support IVF, but first I have to explain the subtle differences between the assisted fertilization method I actually used, and IVF.”
Yeah, he shouldn’t be challenged on the difference. He should be challenged on it not being a real issue in the first place.
You can chase fairies on the head of a pin.
Or we can criminalize lying.
The "I support IVF" would have been fine. Even the "I know what it means" would be perfectly reasonable. "I've been there" is ambiguous because it leave unclear whether "there" means 'having reproductive difficulty' or means 'we used IVF' specifically.
Crediting your two kids specifically to IVF, however, is an unambiguous lie and he deserves to get called out on it. This is relevant because the people who object to IVF do so for reasons that make the distinction between IVF and other reproductive assistance significant.
Nuance and precision in the use of language matter, especially in the people that we are trusting to make and enforce the laws that the rest of us have to live under.
I think we're talking about a turkey baster here.
Yes, Walz is a jive turkey bastard.
Especially for Robbie himself to go on and lump things together:
many religious conservatives want to prohibit IVF—which can result in the destruction of unused fertilized embryos outside the womb—but not IUI
Many religious conservatives want to minimize the needless destruction of fertilized embryos and for people to be more responsible about handling them along the way. But then, the doctors who have to labor through the practice and the women who have to go through the treatments to source them would also prefer a more efficient and reliable one-and-done process.
The only people who really oppose are radical zealots like ENB who think IVF clinics should be shielded from liability if they accidentally set fire to infertile women’s few remaining embryos... you know... in the name of protecting their reproductive freedom.
Agree. In particular, it is very clear that he doesn't want congresscritters in the examination room. That is precisely what would occur in a situation where IVF v IUI is a medical option. Under what medical situations would IVF be the preferred (or necessary) fertility treatment - but not allowed because religious critters have decided that that is illegal - so only IUI is (maybe) available pending religious critter judgement. Mind your own damn business.
Soave is acting like the two procedures have nothing to do with each other. That one is a fertility treatment and the other is satanic murder disguised as treatment for requiring a black cocktail dress.
Of course you agree; you'd a lying pile of steaming lefty shit.
FOAD, asshole.
IVF is controversial as it creates embryos to be discarded later; IUF is not. The differences aren’t subtle. Walz knows that and knew it when he made his claim that he’d not have his children if some Republicans had had their way.
Or perhaps Walz is just too stupid to understand unsubtle differences - not only the difference between IUI and IVF, but the difference between the select fire rifle he pretends to have carried on guard duty and the semi-auto AR-15 he wants to deprive us of. But it gets worse. It's quite unlikely that a Master Sergeant in a non-combat zone would carry a rifle instead of a holstered pistol, but he confuses what he carried with what the troops on guard duty that he supervised may have carried.
Or else he's lying about everything. How do you tell Tim Walz is lying? His lips are moving.
"These are needlessly pedantic complaints.
“I support IVF because I’ve been there and know what it means.”..."
You're full of shit; that's not an exaggeration, it's an outright lie.
Re: The Boys it starts off pretty strong in the first season, after which, it devolves into complete garbage.
And for fucks sake- using your article to recommend people watch a pop show that is nearly a decade old is pretty hubristic. Who does Soave think he was helping there? Does he think there are actually people out there who never saw the show and were waiting to find out what Soave thinks?
I have never seen it. Not sure if anything about. And I am good with that.
Imagine a show devoted to "supetheroes" that also takes "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as dogma. Now give them a progressive leftist showrunner with his sensibilities of what good and evil are and a complete inability to differentiate between fiction and reality. It starts vulgar and gets worse from there, redeeming qualities are nowhere to be found.
"I have never seen it. Not sure if anything about. And I am good with that."
Yep. TV is good for some sports and nothing else.
Why does Reason keep attacking Vance without a fucking peep about Democrats?
Poor sarc.
I’ve been posting here for a year, and never seen anyone but you say this.
Well the lady is an idiot.
And a drunk.
Find another schtick. This one's past boring.
He can't. It's become a reflex at this point.
Soon as an article critical of Republicans isn't met with gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing, and an article critical of Democrats isn't largely ignored.
I’m taking my ball and going home!
Poor sarc.
About a quart a day. The cheap stuff.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-was-only-pretending-to-be-retarded
You seem to be ignoring it and trying to throw shit so others do as well.
I was expecting it and sure enough, here it is.
Just hilarious you keep doing this after denying it in the round up.
Another example of your only concern is not letting anyone criticize a Democrat.
Don't ask me. I'm still reeling from finding out that not all politicians are truthful.
Walz has the sarc syndrome. Alcohol induced brain damage.
I'm two episodes in, and, yes, I'm hooked. I highly recommend it.
Wait until you get 20 eps deep and get back to us.
Yeah they lost me with the looney tunes characters and the broadway dance numbers.
Seth Rogan's influence.
Which is always obvious. He ruined Preacher the same way.
I only got about five episodes in before I realized I did not enjoy any of the characters, even in a "love to hate them" fashion. No one is really likable or has human emotions and that it was a fairly standard left wing preachy narrative, that had contempt for the superhero genre. It was a waste of time.
The guy is a lying scumbag. He fits right in with the rest of the party.
The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night.
How stupid do you have to be to think someone might believe in that happening?
It was remote, rural Nebraska on a deserted Farm to Market 'highway' and they probably had him drive to the STATION where they could administer a breath test. Rural sheriffs and PDs didn't commonly have portable breathalyzers back then, as they were pretty bulky and only used in the field for DWI checkpoints.
It's really not that hard to believe at all, even if it does turn out to be a lie.
They clearly said drove himself to jail. Nobody does that, not even in Mayberry.
The police report in the public records states specifically that he was transported in a squad car. Nebraska is not a third world country. Walz is a lying sack of shit.
As is the "Dr.".
If the cops _did_ let a suspected drunk drive, they'd have lied about it in their report. But although many cops are serial liars, it's much, much more likely that Walz (another serial liar) is lying in this case.
Dr. Omand von Bullshitter heard from.
FOAD, asshole.
Oh really, ‘Doctor’. Do you even have admitting privileges on this comment section?
"Tim Walz Keeps Lying."
That's why Harris nominated him to be her VP.
He can lie almost as well as her.
Impeachment and assassination insurance.
Also needed someone she could look good compared to.
"Thank God for IVF, my wife and I have two beautiful children."
"Thank God for sex, my wife and I have two beautiful children."
"Thank God for America, my wife and I have two beautiful children."
"Thank God for Kamala Harris, my wife and I have two beautiful children."
...
“Thank God for Satan, my wife and I have two beautiful children who’s souls we sacrificed to him to get me where I am today”
For the record, because the media keeps getting this wrong, Master Sergeant is not one rank below Command Sergeant Major, it's one pay grade below, however, the rank below Command Sergeant Major is just Sergeant Major. While pay grade and rank are often similar they are not one for one things. For example at E-4 in the Army you are either a specialist, or a corporal, and at E-8 in both the Army and Marine Corp you are either a Master Sergeant or a First Sergeant. At E-9, there are three subsequent ranks, the lowest is Sergeant Major, then Command Sergeant Major and then Sergeant Major of the Army. All three are the same pay grade, although Sergeant Major of the Army is paid a flat rate regardless of time in service. So, Walz retired one pay grade lower, then his temporary rank of CSM, but two ranks lower than his temporary rank.
Again, more nuance the media is ever going to know, or care about, but was Walz frocked to CSM? Or did he just act in that capacity, while still wearing the rank of Master Sergeant? I’ve seen both versions with Officers, but I have no idea if this is done with NCO’s, whether Guard or Active Duty.
– Genuinely asking if anyone knows, not trying to “gotcha” Walz…
I believe he was frocked but because he failed to extend his contract and failed to pass the Sergeant Major academy, the rank was never made permanent. Can't speak for now, but since Walz and I served around the same time, yes, being promoted on an acting basis, while completing certain criteria, because you were needed in a leadership role, was fairly common in the reserve or guard, largely because getting into the needed NCO courses was creating a major bottleneck, as were deployments, which began ticking up in the early 1990s, even before 9/11 (my unit deployed partially to Bosnia in 98 for example). People joke about weekend warriors, but the guard and reserve units have deployed almost as frequently as their active duty contemporaries for the past 30 years or so. Following the Cold War, the mission tempo increased, while the size of the active duty military shrunk.
Makes sense. Thanks.
Good explanations, thanks. And even now, they're deploying NG units to the Middle East, likely in preparation for anticipated combat with God knows who (Hizbullah, Houthis, Hamas, Iran, ISIS/Al Qaeda, etc.).
It’s a target rich environment.
You are correct. So he is the Command Sergeant Major who never was.
Also, to be clear, his promotion to CSM was provisional, e.g. it wasn't permanent until he met the pre-conditions, He failed to meet both, so he reverted to his permanent rank. The Army has long done this, typically because they are serving in a leadership role that their permanent rank is barred from holding. My own father was an acting buck for two years before being officially promoted to Sergeant (E-5). There used to be two types of corporal (although I've heard the Army has changed the regulation on this recently and now you can only hold corporal if you're E-4P (promotable, meaning you passed the schooling and the board required to get promoted to Sergeant)) one was an acting corporal, generally as a reward from the company or battalion command, and the lost the rank when they transferred to a different unit, or Department of the Army Select Corporal in which you're laterally promoted from specialist to corporal by the Department if the Army and you don't lose your rank if you transfer to a different unit.
96 in a 55 at .128 in 1995 at the height of MADD. I don't know what privilege he took advantage of to escape that shitstorm, but I know that having that on my record would have ruined my life, so I am guessing he played the soldier card.
I don’t know what privilege he took advantage
*ahem* cisgender patriarchal white supremacy *ahem*
Theoretically, he would not be allowed in Canada with a conviction like that.
95 in a 55 in rural Nebraska on a deserted FM highway was surprisingly not very uncommon. The legal limit at the time was 0.10, so blowing a 0.128 wouldn't have carried the same stigma as blowing >0.12 now when most states' legal BAC limits are around 0.07.
None of which is relevant. If Walz had admitted what actually happened even with all of the pointless caveats you've included I for one wouldn't give a shit what he did 30 years ago. What is relevant is that he has been lying about it for political gain ever since.
You.
Are.
A.
Lying.
Pile.
Of.
Lefty.
Shit.
Trying to excuse another lying pile of lefty shit.
FOAD, asshole.
Lying?? You're saying he's not a real Doctor?
But he plays one on the Reason comments section.
A DUI like that is normally a career ended in the military.
Is it? I recall a LTCOL in the Air Force that kept her rank and job as base commander (subordinate to the wing commander) through a DUI in the 1980's. The drunkenness wasn't the worst thing about her. OTOH, if I understood correctly, she was retired the very day she reached 20 years in service and could retire.
Then there was the Air Force Sergeant (E4, equivalent to Army and Marine Corporal) that I saw wearing county jail orange and picking up trash alongside the road as I was leaving Cannon AFB. He had accumulated several DUI's, lost his license, and was now serving a sentence for crashing his car while driving drunk without a license. Everyone assumed he was gone from the service - but four years later, I was back, and found a squadron party going on when I tried to check in. And there he was, by the _non-alcoholic_ drinks table, still with the Sergeant's stripes. It seems that when everyone assumed he was gone, no one completed the paperwork to discharge him before the deadline. And his brother was a congressman...
But the more surprising thing was that he went on the wagon, and stayed on it. He was already rather old for an E4, and I doubt he was ever promoted past this, but he kept his career at least for a while. IIRC, at this time there was a policy of kicking E4's out after 16 years, so you had to make at least E5 to hang on until you could retire at 20. I don't know if his brother found a way around that.
Define many religious conservatives. Also, do they want to ban IVF or ban the destruction of embryos created via IVF? From my understanding it is mostly the latter, and it's far from most religious conservatives, so how many is many?
Hey, did you know that in most of the rest of the world, sex-selective IVF actually is banned? The US is one of the few places where, if you want to have a male or female IVF baby there’s no law against it.
Similarly, there is no law to ban or even prohibit IVF. The closest you get was a State Supreme Court ruling that the mishandling of someone’s fertilized embryos resulting in their destruction is, civilly, the moral equivalent of negligence causing death. Of course, hospitals, anesthesiologists, heart surgeons, brain surgeons, OB-GYNs, etc. deal with this problem with actual high-risk medical procedures all day, every day for decades on end but, for some reason, when an IVF clinic is so negligent in their security that a nobody off the street can walk in, access, and destroy other people’s embryos, security that banks 100 yrs. ago would’ve been embarrassed by, every clinic in the state needs extra legal protection even if they weren't broken into or sued.
Robbie’s framing *almost* seems like a slap on Walz’ wrist in order to take a below-the-belt ‘BOAF SIDEZ’ shot at religious conservatives.
I mean the dude obviously has a thing for 11 year-old boys so he can go live in Germany or whatever ... but for giggles I will defend this one:
>>"Thank God for IVF, my wife and I have two beautiful children."
as two statements separated by incorrect punctuation when compared to the verbal recording.
Thanks. I think opposition is most effective when it remains honest.
Without the rest of the statement there is no reason to take your preferred punctuation as gospel, quite the opposite. Then there is the spoken record and it's ambiguity, sorry I'm not giving scum who take everything at the most maliciously interpretation they can any benefit of the doubt.
also, these people do not lie to you. it is imperative you hear the truths they speak or you end up an author at Reason sans clue
Yikes!
OK, since Liz Wolfe and Jessia Burbank may share certain characteristics that cause my sarc-o-meter to malfunction:
@0:39 - JB Pritzker is a very likable guy. I think even across the aisle he just has a vibe to him." is sarcasm, right?
Otherwise that statement is laughably retarded, all the way down to "You mean the aisle between Democrats in the IL statehouse? Is there an aisle in the Governor's mansion that he's likable across? WTF are you talking about? I'd be leery of that guy across a supermarket aisle."
Being so retarded tlas to defend an authoritarian dem from one of the worst cities... 10-10 on sarcasmic meter.
Tim Walz does not seem to me like he would know the difference between IUI and IVF
He also does not seem smart enough to know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground, kinda like you. If he didn't understand the thing explained in excruciating detail with "other method" then he should STFU instead of lying.
You seem to me to be a shill for lying piles of steaming lefty shit.
Too bad he knows KKK is the antonym of DEI.
And both him and you are deeply mistaken. Ever heard of the horseshoe theory? KKK and DEI are more alike than you think.
If a politician's lips are moving, he's lying.
Re: DWI - The legal limit in his state was 0.10 at the time, so a 0.128 wouldn't have been an egregious violation on its own. Furthermore, I'm surprised he would actually have blown if he knew he was drunk because at the time police didn't have laws in place to severely penalize suspected drunk drivers that refused to give a breath sample. And the breathalyzer machines are notoriously inaccurate, rarely calibrated properly or often enough.
From my understanding of the situation, Walz was also driving on a remote farm-to-market type highway when no other vehicles (except the cop obviously) were out, so the 96mph was more a danger to himself and any animals or livestock crossing the road than to anyone else.
But that’s not how it’s done. People doing things in the past are judged by today’s standards, not when the offense occurred. Don’t you even blackface, bro?
But it's important to demand frank honesty from those seeking higher office
Except Trump. Everyone else has to be honest. Trump gets to lie his ass off and get a pass for doing so.
Poor sarc.
Poor sarc.
Pour Sarc.
I believe he "misspoke".
He got a fucking blood test. He failed the sobriety test and was transported in a squad car and had a blood test. I'm no fan of the DUI racket but you're attempts to exonerate this lying piece of shit are just pathetic.
Look at Robby trying to suck up to the MAGAts in the comments...
Look at the shitlib poking his head up from his child porn folder to drop a comment.
Look at the TDS-addled pile of shit shilling for lying piles of lefty shit.
You sussed us out alright, it’s all MAGA here.
Goddamn they are not sending their best.
I am sure the "fact checkers" on CNN, MSNBC, Snopes, etc. will call him out.
Butthurt Trumpanzwee down on aisle 45!
You’re confused, as usual. You’re looking for the dirty pinko hippie, aisle you.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/attacks-on-walzs-military-record/
The thing about fact checking is that you don't "call someone out". You find the facts that can be verified and report on them. Judge for yourself whether CNN, MSNBC, or any "liberal" "mainstream media" outlet is doing that or is being biased. But we should all be clear what every news organization that has the goal of being ethical is supposed to be doing. Oh, and by the way, it would be properly skeptical to apply those same standards to all news media, not just the liberal ones.
Let’s just all agree that Tim Walz is a serial liar, coward, and an overall pervert pinko scumbag, ok?
The only benefit of Tim Walz becoming Vice President is that he would not be Governor of Minnesota any more, but of course there are serious downsides and the Lt. Governor of Minnesota might be worse like what happened in New York.
Minnesota is like many other states, where the majority of the geography is conservative, but are underneath the thumb of extreme leftist in the cities. Effectively the rural areas are under or simply not represented and the urban areas are over represented or in complete control.
Crazy ideas are pushed out from the cities to the rural communities which are not practical nor desired, because the urban area mass-horde mentality can't recognize that what works in one place can be completely impractical and often counter productive in other places.
With all the one-size fits all mandates being forced by the authoritarian leftists, it a wonder that the rural areas have not fought back sooner.
I believe Waltz is a pathological liar. He lies not because he has to, but because he likes to, or because he can. He really is weird!
How unlike the MAGA Führer!
That was weak. Nothing about girl bullying? Or Comstock laws?
"Tim Walz Keeps Lying
About IVF, his military service, and more."
This is the problem with DEI hires. They lie, and there are always, always better, less diverse candidates who are passed over for the job.
Oh... Walz is white? Never mind.
He was picked to lock in the pro Hamas vote. Which the democrats desperately need, since they’ve largely shit in the whole country at this point.
Goodness! Soave and Deboner is in full Hamburger mode fer shoor. It goes to show: Better to be thought a talking head than to pick up a pen and remove all doubt!
Telling people that they're from Hamburg for calling out Walz isn't a good defense for Walz. Why are you defending Walz? You're not a libertarian.
He also claimed to have retired from active service as a command sergeant major; his actual rank upon retirement was one level lower.
If you're going to criticize Walz for not being truthful, then you might want to be sure you give readers the full truth as well. From two Guardsmen that did retire at Command Sergeant Major rank in the Minnesota National Guard once wrote, in a letter otherwise critical of Walz while he was running for governor in 2018:
Yes, he served at that rank [Command Sergeant Major], but was never qualified at that rank, and will receive retirement benefits at one rank below. You be the judge.
To be fully qualified at that rank and retire with that rank and its benefits, he would have needed to complete some additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.
That is a pretty pedantic distinction to draw.
No, it isn’t. Certainly not to any of us veterans. He is not a retired Command Sergeant Major. Period. Now I can see where it doesn’t seem like a big deal to a democrat like you. Your kind have no honor, integrity, or standards. But to people who value those concepts, especially those of us who served, and in war, it’s a big deal.
I suspect telling you this is much like trying to explain empathy to a sociopath.
There is no reason to believe that the younger Biden’s death had anything to do with any putative proximity to a burn bit. Joe just made that up in his own addled head.
Worse, he claimed that his wife Nealia and his infant daughter Amy were killed by a drunk driver. That was an out-and-out lie.
Beau was a JAG lawyer. They weren’t anywhere near burn pits. And of the lengthy list of presumptive burn pit related conditions, ‘brain tumor’ isn’t on it.