In a striking move, Sen. Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona, has introduced legislation to prevent the Department of Defense from granting military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, a veteran killed during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
According to Breitbart, this controversy centers on Gallego's push to block honors for Babbitt, whose death during the Capitol siege and subsequent reversal of a Pentagon decision to grant her recognition have sparked intense debate.
Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was among the protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. She was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to climb through a broken window into the House Speaker’s Lobby. At the time, lawmakers and staff were evacuating the area for safety. The incident occurred as a mob breached the Capitol, disrupting the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Babbitt was at the forefront of the group trying to access a restricted zone. She was unarmed during the event, and her death marked the only fatality by gunfire that day.
Following her death, a federal investigation concluded that no charges were warranted against the officer, Lt. Michael Byrd, who fired the shot. The officer maintained that his actions were necessary to protect members of Congress present in the vicinity.
Initially, the Pentagon rejected the Babbitt family’s request for military funeral honors. In a letter shared by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group based in Washington, D.C., officials stated that the circumstances of her death could discredit the Air Force. The decision cited her unlawful entry into the Capitol as a key factor. This denial stood for several years, reflecting the Pentagon’s stance on the nature of Babbitt’s actions. The family, however, persisted in seeking recognition for her military service. Judicial Watch supported their cause, advocating for a reversal of the decision.
Their efforts included referencing clemency granted by President Donald Trump to over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 events. This argument aimed to frame Babbitt’s case within a broader context of leniency. Supporters, including Trump, have also claimed that excessive force was used against her.
On August 15, 2025, Under Secretary of the Air Force Matthew Lohmeier announced a significant change in the Pentagon’s position. In a letter to the Babbitt family, also shared by Judicial Watch, he offered military funeral honors. He noted, “After reviewing the circumstances of Ashli’s death, and considering the information that has come forward since then, I am persuaded that the previous determination was incorrect.” Lohmeier further stated, “On behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, I write to extend the offer for Military Funeral Honors for SrA Ashli Babbitt.” This reversal came after new details emerged, though specifics of the information were not disclosed. The decision marked a notable shift from the earlier stance.
Additionally, in May 2025, the Trump administration agreed to a $5 million settlement with Babbitt’s family in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch. The settlement highlighted the contentious nature of her death and the ongoing debate over the use of force during the riot.
Sen. Ruben Gallego swiftly responded to the Pentagon’s reversal with criticism and action. He condemned the decision to grant honors, arguing that Babbitt’s conduct on January 6 disqualified her from such recognition. Gallego has now introduced legislation to block the Defense Department from proceeding with the honors.
His resolution asserts that Babbitt’s attempt to force entry into the House Speaker’s Lobby through a smashed window constituted disqualifying behavior under federal law. It further claims that providing honors would discredit the Air Force. Gallego’s stance reflects deep concern over the precedent this could set. Speaking on the matter, Gallego said, “comes from a sense of patriotism, you know, as someone who served this country, as someone who unfortunately buried a lot of Marines with full military honors.” His military background informs his perspective on the significance of such recognition.
Gallego continued, “The idea that they’re giving this to a person who actively tried to overthrow the government, who was violent in nature, who knowingly was entering a restrictive zone while we were trying to conduct the safe passage of democracy, and the idea that they’re just going to give this without a fight, it’s just not going to happen.” His words underscore the gravity of the situation from his viewpoint.
He also declared, “I’m gonna put people on the record to make sure that we know who stood with your traitor, Ashli Babbitt.” This statement highlights his intent to force a public reckoning on the issue. Gallego remains resolute in his opposition. Furthermore, he emphasized, “Those honors are for those who defend the Constitution, not traitors.” This sharp critique encapsulates his belief that Babbitt’s actions on January 6 were antithetical to the values military honors represent.
The debate over Babbitt’s honors touches on larger questions about how the military addresses controversial figures. Gallego’s legislation aims to set a clear boundary against honoring those involved in actions deemed against democratic principles. It remains to be seen how Congress will respond to his proposal. On the other side, Babbitt’s supporters argue that her veteran status and the context of her death warrant reconsideration. The settlement and clemency references by Judicial Watch add layers to the argument for recognition. The clash of perspectives continues to fuel public discourse.
As this legislative effort unfolds, the outcome could influence future cases involving military honors for individuals tied to contentious events. Both sides present deeply held beliefs about justice, service, and accountability. The resolution of this issue will likely resonate beyond Babbitt’s case alone.