Duncan Hunter

Duncan Hunter


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

Hunter: If Trump really wants a ‘beautiful’ wall, here's what he's gotta get right


Donald Trump’s proclamation that he would build a “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border was a major selling point in his campaign for the presidency.  It was this commitment that helped propel Trump to the forefront of a crowded field of primary opponents either unwilling or hesitant to back the idea, and it no less helped distinguish him significantly from Hillary Clinton on a major political issue important to Americans not just in border states, but nationwide.

It will soon be show-time for Trump, who will step into the Oval Office in just weeks from now with high expectations, and there is no doubt that millions of Americans are eager to see him follow through on this promise—as with many others. 

There is some angst, however, that Trump and his team of advisers might be taking a step back from the idea of a so-called wall on the Southwest border and instead considering a virtual barrier, comprised of sensors and radars, to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic from pouring into the U.S.  That would be a serious mistake, for not only the reason it would signal a broken promise, but also because virtual fencing—as a replacement to physical infrastructure--has been tried before and failed.

In 2006, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into the law the Secure Fence Act, mandating the construction of more than 700 miles of border fencing along the Southwest border.  The law was predicated on replicating the success of the San Diego border fence, which starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends inland approximately 14-miles. 

The design in San Diego is simple yet extremely effective.  Built in the mid-1990’s, the San Diego border fence consists of two layers of fencing, separated by a high-speed border patrol road and equipped with all the bells and whistles to give the Border Patrol every advantage to respond to illegal crossings.  In short order, the San Diego border fence ceased drug vehicle drive-thrus and reduced the smuggling of people and narcotics by 90 percent, according to law enforcement statistics.

By 2006, the issue of border security was once again a political lightening rod.  The prevailing viewpoint in Congress at the time was that San Diego’s infrastructure, once recreated in other border areas, would be equally as effective to protect communities from the threat of violence and close illegal entry points from being exploited daily.     

The Bush administration had other ideas.  Its support for the Secure Fence Act was mild at best, but the political opportunity was seized.  Soon after its enactment, it was evident the law was more of a move in desperate response to public outcry and seen as an enticement to push through another amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. 

Once the prospect of amnesty unraveled, so did the Bush administration’s interest in fulfilling the mandates of the Secure Fence Act. 

So what did the Bush administration do? It began sidestepping the law, and incorporated a combination of less than effective impediments—including vehicle barriers and single layer pedestrian fencing—in order to convey the mileage target was met. 

The Bush administration also invested heavily in virtual fencing with the hope that technology would soon replace the demand for barriers of any kind.  With then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff running point, the Bush administration utilized every stall tactic available to discourage physical fence construction.

What ensued was a billion-dollar boondoggle.

The Bush administration contracted with a leading defense company to launch the Secure Boarder Initiative.  The objective was to supplant double-layered fencing with a series of sensors and cameras to enhance monitoring and enforcement.   Aside from poor program management and oversight, the technology that compromised this virtual wall was costly and impractical due to an overly complex network of assets that were incompatible with the Border Patrol mission.

It didn’t work.  And the system was eventually scrapped by the Obama administration five years after its start.

The Trump administration would be foolish to revive the virtual border fence in place of reliable physical impediments and not learn from the lessons of the past. 

It’s likely that border infrastructure is not conceivable along every inch of the Southwest border due to topographic constraints—and technology along with personnel can most certainly fill those areas.  But the idea that virtual fencing might prevail over physical fencing—as some of Trump’s advisers are now suggesting—is a bad move that ignores the realities of the border and ignores lessons-learned. 

Every president is bound to make mistakes, but for Trump, this cannot be one of them.  Trump must avoid getting hoodwinked by interests and personnel that would like to resurrect the construction of a virtual fence instead of building what is conversationally called a wall but is more realistically an extension of the San Diego border fence. 

It’s a promise that Trump must uphold.  


Read More



HAPPY HOLIDAYS to you and your family… 

2017 is almost here. 

And the New Year will bring with it a new President and a new Administration, along with a reshaped Congress that is ready to act on behalf of American workers and taxpayers.  

In the House of Representatives, there’s a full agenda already and Americans have good cause to be optimistic.  

There’s high excitement for the commitments of the President-elect and his incoming Administration to prioritize tax reform, border enforcement, national defense and job creation.  Internationally, the President-elect is expected to act quickly to restore tattered relationships and strategic alliances—including America’s relationship with Israel.  

No less important, the fight against Islamic terrorism and the threat it presents to the U.S. homeland, as well as our global partners, will receive renewed focus.  With the right leadership and strategic vision, it’s a fight that America can and will win.

At the Department of Defense, the President-elect tapped former General James Mattis—a revered Marine Corps officer regarded as among the best of his generation.  At the Department of Homeland Security, the President-elect selected retired Marine General John Kelly, also considered to be among our military's finest.  

I’ve had the great honor to serve with both John Kelly and James Mattis during my time in the Marine Corps.  I’ve observed both individuals operate and command forces during combat, and there’s no question that their experiences and insights will translate into meaningful and strong leadership at a time when America needs it most.  “Marines get stuff done,” as I told USA Today.  

And an interesting note: I was first introduced to James Mattis during my first tour in Iraq after I and other Marines were ambushed.  From that point on, I’ve admired and respected him as a military officer and an individual.  

The Department of Defense will be good in hands.  Trust me.  So too will the Department of Homeland Security.  The same goes for the other departments—including the Departments of Justice, Interior and Education.

I’m encouraged. 

And I’m especially eager to contribute to the aggressive agenda set for the weeks, months and year ahead.

As always, I hope to hear from you throughout the course of the year as Congress does its legislative work, in addition to providing effective oversight. 


Read More

Rep. Hunter, Sen. Johnson Write Vice President-elect Pence to Roll Back E-Cigarette Regulations


WASHINGTON — Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) sent a letter Monday to Vice President-elect Mike Pence concerning the FDA’s regulation of e-cigarettes.  

Johnson and Hunter are raising concerns about the agency’s recent e-cigarette regulation, which could create undue burdens on small businesses and possibly lead to negative unintended health consequences. The lawmakers are hopeful that, under a new administration, these harmful regulations can be repealed.

“We are hopeful that through both executive and legislative action, burdensome regulations imposed by the Obama administration will be re-examined and undone,” the lawmakers wrote. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s deeming regulation of e-cigarettes is an example of a burdensome rule that could eliminate an entire emerging industry.  The FDA’s rule threatens to crush the e-cigarette industry and potentially hurt the public’s health by making it harder for consumers to access products that serve as an alternative to smoking.”

The letter can be found here and below:

December 12, 2016



The Honorable Mike Pence

Vice President-Elect

Presidential Transition Office

1800 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006


Dear Vice President-Elect Pence:

                Congratulations to President-Elect Trump and you on your election.  Your shared commitment to regulatory reform is an important step in unwinding years of regulatory overreach that expanded the size, scope, and cost of government.  On November 8, the American people voiced their disapproval of the type of government that ignores the input of small business owners, consumers, and job creators.  We are hopeful that through both executive and legislative action, burdensome regulations imposed by the Obama Administration will be re-examined and undone.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) deeming regulation of e-cigarettes is an example of a burdensome rule that could eliminate an entire emerging industry.  The FDA’s rule threatens to crush the e-cigarette industry and potentially hurt the public’s health by making it harder for consumers to access products that serve as an alternative to smoking.  The FDA’s regulation, which went into effect in August, requires e-cigarette manufactures to complete costly and time-consuming applications in order to get federal approval to sell e-cigarette products.  These applications could cost e-cigarette manufacturers—most of which are small businesses—more than $1 million per product, according to some estimates. Many e-cigarette manufacturers cannot afford this expensive application process, and it is likely that this regulation will force most of them to shut down. 

The FDA’s regulation will have a negative effect on an industry that has been innovating and putting thousands of people to work for the past decade.  Christian Berkey, the Chief Executive Officer of an e-liquid company located in Hartland, Wisconsin, is one of many innovators and job-creators whose business will be affected by this burdensome regulation.  Mr. Berkey has told the Committee that the effect of this rule on the e-cigarette industry would be “catastrophic.” If the FDA’s overreach goes unchecked, then thousands of jobs and small businesses will disappear. 

To reign in the regulatory overreach of the Obama Administration, it necessary to consider all appropriate executive and legislative options to ease the burdens on job creators and innovators.  As we continue to pursue legislative options that will protect the thousands of small businesses that rely on producing and selling e-cigarettes, we respectfully urge the new Administration to consider repealing or suspending the FDA’s burdensome deeming regulation over e-cigarettes.  With the President-Elect’s leadership, we are hopeful that we can protect thousands of small-business owners, employees, and consumers from the FDA’s overreach. 

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.





Ron Johnson                                                                                                                      Duncan Hunter

Chairman                                                                                                                            Member of Congress

Committee on Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs

Read More

Hunter reaction to court ruling on DCGS-Army


U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter made the following statement today in response to a federal ruling that imposes an injunction on the U.S. Army’s Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS):

“It’s about time this happened, but it’s still amazing that it took a court of law to reveal the truth about DCGS and counter the blatant misrepresentations and falsehoods that originated within a bureaucracy that is supposed to look out for the best interests of our soldiers.  Instead, our troops have been put at a disadvantage, all while taxpayers have been asked to give even more money—above the billions of dollars allocated so far—for the next installment of DCGS.

“From the start, this was always more than just a contracting fight.  Soldiers in combat have repeatedly requested an off-the-shelf alternative that they assert saves lives.  In one instance, a commander of a major division called it a matter of life and limb.  The fact that this technology has been repeatedly denied and actively discredited is an example of bureaucracy at its worst. 

“We must not allow bureaucrats and others with personal agendas to stop our soldiers from fighting and winning wars.  And I’m pleased today that a court sided with our soldiers and is forcing the Army to reissue its RFP on DCGS.”         

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