U.S. Representative Troy Nehls, a Republican from Texas and an Army veteran, has found himself in hot water over a lapel pin. This pin, which Nehls has been seen wearing since at least 2021, resembles the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), an award given to infantrymen and Special Forces soldiers who have fought in active combat. However, the wearing of this pin by Nehls has sparked significant controversy and accusations of stolen valor, leading him to announce he would no longer wear it.
The controversy escalated to the point where Nehls issued a statement on Tuesday evening, described as his “final written comment” on the matter. In his statement, Nehls acknowledged that the Department of the Army rescinded his CIB in 2023, 14 years after his retirement. He highlighted the rarity of such rescissions, stating, “According to correspondence I received from the Department of the Army, 142,596 CIBs have been awarded over the past 20 years. Of these, only 47 CIBs have been rescinded.” Nehls implied that the rescission was politically motivated, suggesting, “Unfortunately for me, as an America First Patriot and an outspoken member of Congress, there are no lengths to which the establishment won’t go to discredit me, including my CIB, which I was awarded over 14 years ago.”
US Representative Troy Nehls, pictured outside a New York courthouse during Donald Trump’s trial, has been at the center of a controversy regarding a lapel pin resembling the Combat Infantryman Badge.
However, Nehls’s explanation and decision to stop wearing the pin have not quelled the criticism, particularly from within the veteran community. Anthony Anderson, a U.S. Army veteran and the founder of Guardian of Valor, an organization that investigates stolen valor claims, has been looking into Nehls’s case for over six months. Anderson told Newsweek that Nehls’s move to stop wearing the pin is likely an attempt to make the issue “go away.”
Anderson expressed his frustration, stating, “It angers me because he is a veteran and served in combat. He’s been to Afghanistan, he’s been to Iraq. I’m sure he’s seen soldiers who are injured or killed.” He emphasized the prestige and strict requirements associated with the CIB, explaining, “That CIB is a very prestigious award; the regulations are very strict to keep it that way. To see him flaunting it around when there are soldiers awarded this posthumously for serving this country, it kind of slaps us in the face. It blows my mind.”
The Combat Infantryman Badge was established in 1942 and holds a significant place in military culture. It is awarded specifically to infantrymen whose primary role is to engage and destroy the enemy while seizing and holding ground. According to reports, Nehls’s military records were amended in March 2023, with the CIB being revoked because he served as a civil affairs officer, not as an infantryman or Special Forces soldier, during the deployment in question.
Anderson’s investigation began after concerns were raised by individuals familiar with Nehls’s 2008 deployment regarding the legitimacy of him wearing the CIB lapel pin. Anderson personally engaged with Nehls’s staff to discuss the discrepancies in his military records and his account of receiving the badge. Despite providing detailed information and suggesting Nehls could address the issue by apologizing, Anderson stated that Nehls’s office ceased communication.
Now, Anderson believes Nehls is hoping the controversy will simply fade away, particularly as the November election approaches. “It’s not honorable,” Anderson stated. “He could have just come out and said, ‘Hey, I wore this award and I wasn’t authorized.'” Anderson further emphasized the knowledge every combat veteran possesses regarding the CIB, saying, “Anyone who served more than a week in the combat army knows the rules about the badge.” The Army’s regulations clearly state that “Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award of the CIB.”
Anderson stresses that this issue transcends political lines, highlighting its moral dimension. “This is a nonpartisan issue,” he said. “I’ve got vets from both sides of the aisle.” He explained that while some initially considered it a mistake, the evidence presented made it clear that Nehls was aware he was not authorized to wear the badge. Anderson anticipates Nehls will attempt to let the controversy dissipate rather than issue an apology to the military community. However, he believes “It always will be there. It will be a stain on his campaign and his integrity,” suggesting the controversy surrounding the lapel pin and the accusations of stolen valor will continue to linger.
