Duncan Hunter

Duncan Hunter


Hunter: US Coast Guard deserves military-level funding


America’s national defense consists of an intricate network of government entities that occupy unique mission sets that integrate seamlessly and project American power anywhere in the world. It’s often the Navy and Marine Corps, the Army, the Air Force, and the dichotomy of intelligence agencies that receive high praise and credit as the nation’s premier operational components.    Often overlooked in the organizational structure of America’s national defense is the U.S. Coast Guard. Unlike any of the other traditional military services, the Coast Guard is the first line of defense for the nation’s shores and waterways. Without the Coast Guard, America’s vulnerabilities would increase exponentially, not just at the hands of foreign adversaries but from undocumented migrants and drug smugglers whose creativity for new methods of entry are constantly matched by the courage and stamina of the Coast Guard’s men and women.    One of my many priorities as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, and a U.S. Marine veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is to ensure the Coast Guard is not viewed simply as an extension of domestic law enforcement. The Coast Guard, even though situated under the Department of Homeland Security, is a military organization that deserves its place — with word, respect and funding — among the rest of America’s military under the command of the Department of Defense.    To best appreciate the unique circumstances facing the Coast Guard, compare it to any of the traditional service branches and their sizable budgets made possible by the allocation of more than $500 billion annually to the Defense Department. In these terms, the Coast Guard’s budget is shoestring — amounting to $10 billion.    The Coast Guard has done its job well, always doing more with less, no different than the Marine Corps has done since its inception. This is something I know firsthand having served multiple tours as a Marine Corps officer, and it’s something I’ve come to appreciate in close observation of the Coast Guard over time.    The Marine Corps, managing air wings and a complexity of aviation assets, is facing a severe readiness crisis and Congress is now responding. Similarly, we cannot ignore that the Coast Guard is facing readiness shortfalls of its own.    Times have become so dire that crews manning the undersized fleet of icebreaking vessels have resorted to ordering equipment online and raiding aging vessels to maintain a minimum threshold of operability. This again is no different than the Marine Corps, which only recently was left to salvage for aircraft parts in museums. In the modern era, with such high operational demands across the board, this should embarrass anyone with a stake or equity in establishing a strong national defense, and it underscores the renewed urgency to face reality.    Much of these shortfalls can be attributed to the last eight years of the Obama administration and its failures in prioritization. For the Coast Guard, it’s lacked any real advocate outside its own ranks and was routinely rolled by the two previous secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget who viewed the Coast Guard budget more as a nuisance and even a source for reach-back funding for other programs.    This occurred despite the persistent need for six new polar icebreakers to counter Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. The last heavy icebreaker was built in the late 1970s and only now is the first of six icebreakers in nascent development, but some factions within government — to include within Congress — are not yet fully convinced of the importance. It’s not the Navy that will patrol the Arctic with icebreakers, it’s the Coast Guard. And as the Navy pivots to the Pacific, it’s the Coast Guard that will fill in and protect anywhere the Navy is unable.    Not only does the Coast Guard need icebreakers, it should have more of the assets, equipment and personnel its needs to do its job as a military service. In that aspect, one idea I am pursuing is the weaponization of a class of vessels beyond those already on the order books to ensure proper supplementation of the Navy mission where needed and to ensure these vessels wherever called can counter any provocation.     The Coast Guard also lacks its own ground-based unmanned aerial systems and is at the mercy of Customs and Border Protection for these assets. So, this year, I’ll also be looking to delineate a UAS program specifically for the Coast Guard.    Perhaps the time has come to begin the conversation on whether the Coast Guard should be moved to the Department of Defense. During the Obama administration, this would have been prudent. Still a possibility, this might be less necessary. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly knows more about the Coast Guard than any of his predecessors, thanks to his experience as the head of U.S. Southern Command. President Donald Trump will soon also learn the value of the Coast Guard, if not already.    A strong Coast Guard is in America’s interests. It’s time to face the fact that the Coast Guard is a military service and should be funded like one — and for once, there are leaders beyond the Coast Guard who are sure to agree. Read More

Hunter announces he won’t submit federal funding requests for sanctuaries


Washington D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter announced that for Fiscal Year 2018, he will not submit any federal appropriations requests on behalf of states, cities, universities or other entities that have an ordinance, policy or practice in place that undermines the enforcement of federal immigration laws.  

“Sanctuaries that defy federal immigration laws should be held accountable,” said Representative Hunter.  “If a state or local entity prefers to violate the law and not cooperate on federal immigration matters, this should be an immediate disqualifier for federal funding. 

“Members of Congress share a responsibility to ensure jurisdictions and entities within their Congressional Districts are abiding by the law.  The submission of a federal funding request for sanctuaries is irresponsible and rewards disregard for the law—and I can’t support that.  It’s my hope that many of my colleagues will take this same approach when considering funding requests for the next fiscal year.”

Last Congress, Hunter’s legislation—H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act—was passed by the House on July 23, 2015, by a vote of 241-179.  More recently, Hunter introduced the No Funding for Sanctuary Campuses Act, which denies Title IV funding to sanctuary campuses. 

Read More

Hunter: ‘Trump is doing things right’


President Trump was elected by the American people on the promise that he would put America first and restore the notion of American exceptionalism. His executive actions have been consistent with his commitments as a candidate and signal that he’s not all talk.   Some of President Trump’s executive orders have been viewed as controversial, but so too were the executive actions or inaction by his predecessor. His victory was not an accident, and to pretend that his executive actions are excessive or harmful fails to recognize both his prerogatives as president and the fact that he was elected to do what he said he’d do without overstepping.   No different than President Obama, President Trump’s first salvos in office have excluded any real collaboration with Congress. Eventually, that relationship will be necessary, through better or worse, to either codify his executive actions into law or advance a mutually shared agenda on issues big and small. Conversely, Congress can also act within its constitutionally designated authority to present different courses of action or flatly reject almost any executive pursuit.   Only time will tell whether Trump attempts to routinely utilize his authority in excess, as Obama did. Criticism of Trump’s initial actions was expected and is in no way a surprise. But to judge his actions now in comparison to Obama’s over eight years — in some way suggesting congressional Republicans should be equally as critical of any use of executive authority — ignores the clear intent of these initial actions and the indisputable fact that he has yet to disregard Congress or exceed his authority.   If ever true, then it is a sure bet that Congress will have something to say about it — in word and legislation. But right now, President Trump is doing things right. Some things have been less than perfect, to include the rollout of his immigration order and some of its finer points.   That aside, his use of executive authority has been appropriate, and it can continue as long as it acknowledges and respects the separation of powers and adheres to the limitations of the executive branch.   Read More

Reps. Hunter and Kinzinger lead letter to President in support of Secretary Mattis’ exemption requests


Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) sent a bipartisan letter to President Trump in support of the request by Secretary of Defense James Mattis to exempt Iraqis who served alongside our military. The letter expands on the need for a special review process for those who directly supported American personnel overseas. Upon sending the letter, Reps. Kinzinger and Hunter, both veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the following joint statement:   “We made a promise to the men and women who served alongside us on the battlefield, and we must uphold that promise to leave no man behind. We urge the President to honor Secretary Mattis’ requests, and stand up for those who stood by our military and American personnel. For the safety of these courageous individuals and their families, and in the interest of our national security, it’s critical that we make this exception and do so swiftly.”   The full text of the letter is below:    Dear Mr. President:              With regard to your executive order to temporarily halt immigration originating from specified countries, we want to register our strong support for the request of Secretary of Defense James Mattis to exempt military interpreters, aides and other allies who risked their lives alongside U.S. personnel in Iraq.  Congress established the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program in 2008 and we are acutely aware of the significant contribution of these individuals in support of America’s global campaign against radical terrorism.     These allies risked their own lives, as well as the well-being of their families, to advance America’s security interests in a region where their skillsets and willingness to confront extremism have been invaluable to mission success.  We are concerned that, with specific application to individuals who worked with the U.S. Government on the ground, certain immigrants deserving prompt consideration are likely to be overlooked. We encourage you to make special consideration in the review process for these individuals, who are certain to face threats to their own lives as part of the broader pause in refugee and immigrant admissions.    It is important that a special exception is made for the consideration of individuals who directly supported American personnel overseas.  We respectfully ask that you take this action to ensure these individuals are not put in any further danger.  Doing so would send a strong signal to those who show such immense courage to advance U.S. security interests at a risk to their own safety, as well as the many veterans and warfighters who’ve relied on the service of these individuals for their own protection and to accomplish their objectives.         In addition to Kinzinger and Hunter, other Members of Congress who signed on to this letter include: Reps. Steve Stivers (R-OH), Earl Blumenauer (D-PA), Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Peter Welch (D-VT).   Read More

Reps. Hunter, Thompson (CA-5) Commend Official Challenge to Canadian Trade Measures That Discriminate Against U.S. Wine


Washington D.C. – Today, Congressional Wine Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Mike Thompson (D-CA-05) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA-50) applauded a new trade enforcement action to ensure both imported and local wines have equal access to grocery store shelves in Canada. Currently in British Columbia, only wines produced in the province can be sold on grocery store shelves. This week, the United States  challenged that regulation for discriminating against U.S. wine producers.

“Our American wineries make some of the best wines in the world, and denying them access to grocery stores in British Columbia not only hinders the growth of our entrepreneurs, but denies Canadians access to our products,” said Thompson and Hunter. “It is encouraging that British Columbia wants to open grocery stores as a new distribution channel for wine, but as a member of the WTO, any expansion  must include products from around the world. Any trade partnership must be based on a level playing field where everyone has a chance to grow their economy—including American winemakers.”

Under the WTO dispute settlement process, the U.S. and Canada undergo consultations to resolve this complaint. If a mutually-agreed upon solution cannot be reached during the consultation period, the U.S. may request a dispute settlement panel to examine the matter.

For more information, please see the U.S. Trade Representative’s full release here: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/january/Challenges_Canadian_Trade_Measures_That_Discriminate_Against_US_Wine.

Read More

Hunter: Education is about more than just test scores


When talking about school choice, the conversation often drifts down the wonky path of numbers and test scores that support or oppose the right of a parent to choose where they send their children to school.  But, in the context of whether we want a society that supports or limits school choice, the answer is clear: parents—not the government—should have the ultimate say in where their children attend school.

Educational opportunities should not be limited to the rich or the elite.  Expanded school choice should be made available to the families in our communities, who live paycheck-to-paycheck and struggle to provide for their loved ones; to the single mother, who works two jobs because her hours at her primary job were cut after Obamacare went into effect; and to the child with a learning disability, who requires an individualized education program (IEP) but can only receive the minimal education benefit from their local public school.

It’s quite simple—school choice is about providing our children with the opportunity to obtain an education that works best for them, rather than an education that works best for the Washington D.C. bureaucrat, who favors a one-size-fits-all approach to education.

School choice means allowing a child in a rural community to attend an online school from the comforts of their home, so they don’t have to commute 45 minutes each day.

School choice means allowing a high school dropout student to enroll in a Charter School that specializes in GED attainment and career and technical education.

School choice means allowing a low income family to send their child to a school that teaches the values and principles that parents wish to instill in their children.

These are real scenarios that families in our communities confront every day.  Through innovative school choice initiatives, we have the opportunity to empower a generation of parents and students to break the outdated model of our broken education system, and open the door to a brighter future for the lives of our children.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and with the incoming Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos—a champion of school choice initiatives—as we look to expand school choice options for American students.


Read More

Hunter: Donald Trump, change agent


With every new presidency comes real opportunity for real change.

Over the last eight years, Americans have become ever more disillusioned with politics as usual and that sentiment was expressed, loud and clear, at the ballot box last November.

Politics is as much about timing as it is good fortune, but every now and then a candidate comes along with real backbone — as did Donald Trump. Mr. Trump capitalized on the frustration of the American people, promising to be an agent for change and an agitator of the status quo. It wasn’t seen as just talk.

Only time will tell the type of president that Mr. Trump will be, and whether he’ll be able to follow through on his many promises. There will be little to no honeymoon for Mr. Trump, with Chuck Shumer and Nancy Pelosi steering the priorities of congressional Democrats, but with Mr. Trump, what you see is what you get. Against any political opposition, honesty and sincerity wins every time and Mr. Trump will undoubtedly have the advantage.

Based on form so far, Mr. Trump is a sure bet to always do what he thinks is right and what he thinks is in the national interest. Political shortcuts don’t seem to be in his playbook.

The same goes for the team Trump’s assembled, which reflects his own desire to talk straight with the American public and not mince words. Two of his selections for key leadership posts are obvious proof. James Mattis as secretary of Defense and John Kelly as secretary of Homeland Security are not just among the most talented leaders in America, both men are walking testaments of core values and the virtues of public service. Not once through their military careers as Marine Corps officers did they soften their views to avoid offending the political class.

So much so, it hurt their standing with the Obama administration. Under President Trump, they’re unlikely to have that same problem. No member of Congress or the American public will ever have to wonder where these men stand, no different than their commander in chief.

That alone is cause for optimism. It’s also a signal that America once again, through its leadership, will retake a leading role in the world. No more apologies. No more excuses. Alliances that have been tattered will be rebuilt. American warfighters will no longer be constrained on the battlefield and the warrior ethos that once upheld America’s military will be restored.

On the home front, there’s great prospect for American manufacturing. Trade opportunities will no longer give favor to U.S. competitors over American workers. And for once, there’s a real commitment on behalf of a president to secure the Southwest border and consistently but fairly apply federal immigration laws.

Just the fact alone that sanctuary cities and states have been put on notice is more than any President in modern history has done with regard to the problem. That counts for something.

Mr. Trump will have strong collaborators in Congress to implement his agenda, although Congress will have its own prerogatives and demand mutual respect for the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution — even if sometimes painful. It’s a delicate relationship that Mr. Trump will need to learn to balance, but when he does he’ll find that Congress as a whole shares his passion and commitment to make America great.

For that, his team will be invaluable. Figures like Vice President Mike Pence understand the executive-legislative dynamic. Department heads like Jeff Sessions, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price and Mick Mulvaney have held elected office and their past experiences will not just help Mr. Trump navigate the waters but also be an asset to forging and maintaining good relationships with lawmakers.

Mr. Trump has all the right tools. He’s got the right message and he’s got a spine stiff enough to see it through.

Mr. Trump would be wise to remember what propelled him to the White House. No less, he must not forget that when Americans voted for real change, they really meant it.

Read More

Hunter: Choosing two of America’s finest leaders


The media often caricatures rather than analyzes its subjects. Marine generals, especially those with colorful nicknames, are often pigeonholed as overly aggressive and less than analytical when facing complex situations.

Any attempt to portray Marine Gen. James Mattis, President-elect Trump’s nominee for secretary of Defense and Gen. John Kelly, nominee for secretary of Homeland Security as “attack now and sort ‘em out later” military types overlooks the truth about two of America’s finest leaders — military or civilian.

On the drive to Baghdad in 2003, Gen. Mattis, the commander of the first Marine Division was charged with driving up the plains between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, while the army’s Third Infantry Division assaulted to his West. Between the American forces and Saddam’s headquarters in Baghdad were some-17 Iraqi Divisions. Some were combat ready, some rag-tag.

Nonetheless, they represented a force of 300,000 enemy soldiers with armor and artillery that the Americans had to confront. Gen. Mattis and his deputy commander Gen. John Kelly performed magnificently. “We’re not here to kill a bunch of mother’s sons,” Gen. Kelly admonished his officers, ” … but to take Baghdad.” And they and their Army brethren did, with lightning swiftness and low casualties.

Speed was the order of the day, with Gen. Mattis landing C-130 aircraft on the highway to fuel up his attacking armor. Gen. Mattis “head-faked” an assault up the middle, isolated Saddam’s Baghdad Division with two of his regiments and brought his Fifth Regiment (commanded by present-chairman of the Joint Chiefs Joe Dunford) in from the East flank with lightning speed.

By April 6, Gen. Mattis‘ forces were in Baghdad. Throughout the historic assault Gen. Mattis and Gen. Kelly used intelligence and solid decision-making to win quickly with low casualties.

Later, when four U.S. contractors were killed, burned and hung on the Euphrates Bridge in Fallujah, President Bush’s civilian lead in Iraq, Paul Bremer, called for a massive Marine assault on the Sunni City. Gen. Mattis and Gen. Kelly advised against the assault, arguing that it would polarize the Sunni tribes against America. Their message: “Don’t take the bait kill the murderers with surgical strikes.”

Mr. Bremer’s insistence won out. The Marines cussed the amateurs and attacked, then were ordered to stop the attack four days later when they were halfway through the city. Through it all Gen. Mattis and Gen. Kelly led their forces effectively through the fog of war and politics.

Later, as the top Marine in Anbar Province, Gen. Kelly was a leader in splitting the Sunni Tribes from their one-time allies, al Qaeda. While the latter brutalized the tribes, the Marines and soldiers built water-lines and medical centers and monitored elections. When the widows of a tribe needed income, Gen. Kelly brought in milk cows. When a tribal leader died, Gen. Kelly sent his body home in his personal helicopter. The Marine and Army campaign to divide al Qaeda from the tribes worked, with the Sunni leaders turning on the terrorists in 2006 and joining the U.S. in crushing them in 2007.

In the years since they were prime movers in winning the Iraq War, Gen. Mattis and Gen. Kelly have been entrusted with big chunks of U.S. military forces. They have performed superbly, gathering respect among Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. President-elect Trump knows he is will be getting straightaway answers on the big issues from the always-candid Gen. Mattis. The same goes for Gen. Kelly, whose sense of duty is daily strengthened by the family legacy of his heroic son Robert, who fought in Fallujah as a Private First Class and later was lost in combat as a platoon leader in Afghanistan.

For those who assert the “Marshal” prohibition which bars, in the absence of a waiver, a general from becoming secretary of Defense, a glance at the operational “chain of command” is in order. Under the Constitution and U.S. statute, the command of the Armed Forces flows from the president to the secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders around the world.

The idea that a link in that chain of commanding operations, namely the secretary of Defense, cannot be a military leader is nonsensical. Gen. Mattis will bring insight to the job that no background in academia or business could ever provide. With respect to Gen. Kelly, his last major job as commander of SOUTHCOM, overseeing all of Central and South America has given him tremendous understanding of our porous borders and the drug cartels that penetrate them.

Gen. Mattis and Gen. Kelly, both are better-than-ideal candidates for secretary of Defense and secretary of Homeland Security. On this one Donald Trump’s judgment was superb. And if it’s any indication what type of commander in chief Mr. Trump will be, we can all rest easy.

Read More

Hunter responds to report questioning whether Marine Corps General James Mattis committed war crimes in Iraq


Washington DC – Today, U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter responded to a report from the Center for Investigative Reporting, questioning whether Marine Corps General James Mattis committed war crimes in Fallujah, Iraq in April 2004.  Hunter was a Marine Corps Artillery Officer with 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines in Fallujah at the time.

Hunter’s statement follows:

“This was war and Mattis was a warfighting General.  For anyone bothered by that fact, get over it. 

“America is finally receiving a Secretary of Defense who not only understands war, but who also won on the battlefield.  Fallujah was the last free-fire zone for artillery for the entire Iraq war.  And Fallujah was the largest urban battle since Vietnam.  That’s a wartime job.  And Mattis did it with distinction.  

“America needed Mattis then and America needs Mattis now, as Secretary of Defense. 

“In fact, I can clearly recall as a Marine Corps Artillery Officer in Fallujah in 2004 that the rules of engagement allowed for targeting anyone out during curfew.  Did we utterly decimate? Yes.  We—as Marines—were a force to be feared.  And we won. 

“Mattis wasn’t a general during a policing action.  He was a warfighter General.  That’s a big difference from what we’ve been doing over the last ten years and what Mattis was tasked to do.  His job was not to advocate for social change in the military—a top priority of the Obama Administration.  His duty was to destroy the enemy, to protect America’s interests and protect American lives. 

“Just to question whether Mattis committed war crimes in Iraq is absurd.  This was real war.  Mattis’ job was to kill America’s enemies and bring home America’s sons and daughters. 

“No better friend, no worse enemy than a U.S. Marine.”   

Read More

Hunter: Colleague's 'art' disrespected cops


The U.S. Capitol represents many things to different people, but one thing it’s not is a modern art museum.   

Every year, Members of Congress host an art competition in their congressional districts and the winners—selected through a variety of ways—are given the honor of having their artwork displayed in the U.S. Capitol for the world to see. 

With the artwork, creativity is not in short supply.  The artists are talented and each piece of art that is created—consisting of diverse mediums and styles—either convey a subtle message or project a clear, defining statement. 

One less than subtle painting that was selected in last year’s competition depicted a scene from Ferguson, Missouri.  In the foreground are police officers with their weapons drawn in what appears to be a confrontation with unarmed citizens. 

If that were the image alone, it might have been more tolerable—even if disliked.  What made the painting a subject of national controversy is that it depicts the police officers as pigs.  And they’re not the rotund pink kind or anything like Wilber from Charlotte’s Web.

Rather, the police officers are depicted as warthogs or some wild pig with tusks protruding from the mouth and curving upward.  In military speak—there’s a reason why the Air Force’s A-10 attack aircraft is nicknamed the warthog.  Yes, it can kill, but it has a less-than-beautiful outward appearance, thus the nickname. 

Applied to police officers and law enforcement of all kinds, the image is neither complimentary nor salutary.  It’s offensive.  And law enforcement organizations and others were right to call for its removal—even though that’s not why it came down.

After a Friday morning meeting with my House Republican colleagues, where the painting was a subject of conversation, I walked by the piece of artwork hanging on the wall in the Capitol.  And I couldn’t help but think of all of America’s law enforcement, in addition to our military men and women, who put their lives on the line every day.

I thought of all the men and women who honorably and faithfully wear a badge, who protect our communities and streets.  I thought too of our collective obligation of a society to uphold these defenders of law and justice, even though too it is right that decision makers hear and respond properly to instances when law enforcement does overstep.   

So as an American citizen and a former Marine who supports law enforcement, I took matters into my own hands.  I unscrewed the painting from the wall and returned it to the Democratic Congressman who represents the award winner. 

Hanging in an individual Congressional office, there’s no real room for complaint.  Hanging in a museum or on display in a gallery, that’s fine.  But a painting of that kind—projecting the message it does—does not belong in the U.S. Capitol. 

My intent was to make a statement—just as the artist and his or her endorsers did.  Call it my own form of expression. 

There is a thin blue line on which police officers stand in protection of us all.  They deserve our respect and appreciation.  And if ever there’s a poor decision on the part of one or a few, it does not reflect the true character and commitment of an entire organization of men and women nationwide committed to protect and serve the public.  

There’s nothing inclusive or healing when police officers are referred to as swine.  Even if the painting is put back where it once hung, at least the message was sent to America’s police departments and law enforcement that their service is valued.

For that reason alone, it was all worth it. 

Read More

Loading legislation ... one moment please
Loading votes ... one moment please

HASC hearing

2013-05-01 20:36:39

Hunter Praises Marine General James Mattis

2013-04-11 17:04:08

Congressman Duncan Hunter Discusses the Denial of the Medal of Honor for Sgt. Rafael Peralta

2012-12-14 16:56:39

CNN Newsroom Segment on DoD Denial of Medal of Honor for Sgt. Peralta

2012-12-13 16:43:12

Rep. Duncan Hunter Talks on KUSI about the Administration's Handling of Libya

2012-11-02 14:07:44

Fox News Special Report feat. Rep. Hunter Discussing the Army's Use of Palantir

2012-07-31 14:14:18

Congressman Hunter on Fox News Discussing the Army's Use of Palantir to Detect IEDs

2012-07-26 20:00:11

Congressman Duncan Hunter Speaks on Treatment of KIA Servicemembers' Remains

2012-07-19 18:33:04

Rep. Duncan Hunter on Fox Business Discussing CA Bankruptcies

2012-07-12 15:36:19

Congressman Duncan Hunter Discusses True Unemployment on Fox Business

2012-04-26 15:26:24

Congressman Duncan Hunter Discusses the Unemployment Situation

2012-03-08 16:15:49

Floor Statement on H.R. 290, the War Memorial Protection Act

2012-01-24 20:23:19

11/2/11 Congressman Duncan Hunter on Agent Diaz Case

2011-11-02 15:32:44

10/30/2011 Fox News Segment (II) on Agent Diaz

2011-11-01 21:22:37

10/29/2011 Fox News Segment on Agent Diaz

2011-11-01 21:18:57

10/26/2011 Fox News Interview on Mexican ID Cards

2011-11-01 21:14:28

10/25/2011 Fox News on Mexican Cross-Border Trucking

2011-11-01 21:02:40

10/14/2011 CNN interview on MoH

2011-10-14 15:20:20

10/13/2011 HASC Press Conference on Defense Cuts

2011-10-13 21:42:42

7/31/11 FOX News Interview on Debt Limit

2011-08-02 16:37:07

Contact Information

223 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone 202-225-5672
Fax 202-225-0235

Congressman Duncan D. Hunter represents California’s 50th Congressional District consisting of East and Northern County San Diego. In 2008, Hunter was elected to his first term in the House of Representatives, succeeding his father, Duncan L. Hunter, who retired after serving 14 consecutive terms in Congress.

Hunter is a native of San Diego. He graduated from Granite Hills High School in El Cajon and earned a degree in Business Administration from San Diego State University. Hunter worked to pay for his education by creating websites and programming databases and ecommerce systems for high-tech companies. Immediately after graduation, he went to work full time in San Diego as a Business Analyst.

Soon after our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, Hunter quit his job and joined the United States Marine Corps. Hunter entered active service as a Lieutenant in 2002 and excelled in the area of field artillery, much like his grandfather, Robert O. Hunter, who was a Marine Corps artillery officer in World War II.

Over the course of his service career, Hunter served three combat tours overseas: two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. In 2003, Hunter deployed to Iraq with the 1st Marine Division. Hunter completed his second tour in 2004, where he and his fellow Marines were at the center of combat operations in Fallujah, Iraq.

In September 2005, four years after he quit his job and joined the Marine Corps, Hunter was honorably discharged from active military service and started a successful residential development company. Still a Marine Reservist, he was promoted to the rank of Captain in 2006, and to the rank of Major in 2012.

Less than two years before Hunter was elected, he was recalled to active duty and deployed to Afghanistan. Hunter returned home after more than six months on the front lines and, with the support of the San Diego community, became the first Marine combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan elected to Congress.

Hunter is a strong conservative who is committed to strengthening national security, enforcing our borders, creating opportunities for American workers and protecting the interests of taxpayers. He is also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, protecting traditional marriage and the rights of the unborn.

Congressman Hunter and his wife live in Alpine, California. They are the proud parents of three children: Duncan, Elizabeth and Sarah.

Serving With

Doug LaMalfa


Tom McClintock


Paul Cook


Jeff Denham


David Valadao


Devin Nunes


Kevin McCarthy


Steve Knight


Ed Royce


Ken Calvert


Mimi Walters


Dana Rohrabacher


Darrell Issa


Recent Videos