Sherrod Brown’s 1971 letter argued against releasing Vietnam War POWs, podcast hosts reveal
Hosts of the Ruthless podcast drew attention to a 1971 letter by Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown opposing the release of American prisoners of war during the Vietnam War. The letter is being used in the current campaign to question Brown’s political sympathies, as Democrats see Ohio as a potential route to gaining Senate seats.
Brown’s letter, published in the News-Journal, asked what would stop the United States from bombing Hanoi and Haiphong if North Vietnam released the POWs. The article also recalls his teenage writings criticising the Nixon administration, reported in 2015, and says his campaign had not responded to a request for comment. Brown served in the Senate from 2007 to 2025; his race against incumbent Jon Husted is described as a toss-up, with Republicans holding a 53–47 Senate majority.
- Podcast hosts highlighted Brown’s 1971 letter opposing POW release.
- The letter has become a point of criticism in Ohio’s Senate race.
- Brown served three Senate terms from 2007 to 2025.
New here? Start with this
Sherrod Brown is an Ohio Democrat who served in the US Senate from 2007 to 2025. He is running for the seat held by Republican Jon Husted, in a race that could affect the balance of power in the Senate.
During the Vietnam War, the United States fought North Vietnam, and American service members were captured and held as prisoners of war. The fate of those prisoners was a major issue in US debate over the war and how it should end.
Brown’s political views from his youth have become part of the campaign discussion. The race matters nationally because Republicans currently hold a narrow Senate majority, so a change in Ohio could influence which party controls the chamber.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A campaign may fairly scrutinise a candidate’s past public statements, especially when they concern war, prisoners and the use of force. Brown’s letter can prompt legitimate questions about whether he opposed a negotiated release on principled grounds, and how his views on military pressure have changed since then.
The case against
A letter written in 1971, amid a divisive war and by someone who was then young, may offer limited evidence about a candidate’s present character or political sympathies. Using it to imply disloyalty risks stripping the argument from its historical context; voters may reasonably give greater weight to Brown’s later record and current positions.