In ancient Rome, even defeated enemies were allowed their funeral rites—it was a matter of civilized honor that transcended the battlefield. Today, in Congress, we’re witnessing a battle over whether that principle still holds in America.
The U.S. military has long maintained traditions that honor those who served, regardless of how their stories ended. The folded flag, Taps, the rifle salute; these represent gratitude for service rendered, not judgment on final moments.
But some in Washington now want to rewrite these sacred traditions based on political scorecards.
This week, the Senate became a battlefield over military funeral honors for a veteran who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan seven times (seriously, seven times). The Air Force had already agreed to provide these honors, recognizing years of service in war zones.
The veteran at the center of this storm is Ashli Babbitt, shot and killed on January 6, 2021. Babbitt was never convicted of any crime. She died an American citizen who had repeatedly risked her life for her country … and yet Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona submitted a resolution to strip away her military funeral honors.
Thankfully, Republican leader Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) wouldn’t stand for it. From ‘BizPac Review’:
“This resolution is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to strip away the earned honors of a veteran who deployed seven times during her many years in the United States Air Force.
Ashli Babbitt earned these funeral honors through her service to this nation. It’s disgraceful, and it’s un-American. In case my colleague is unaware of this, the Constitution still applies even to those you disagree with politically.”
We need to be clear about this: A sitting U.S. Senator wanted Congress to reach beyond the grave to punish a military veteran; not based on any conviction, not based on military conduct during service, but based on his political interpretation of her final day.
The Air Force had already recognized her service and offered the honors she earned. These aren’t political rewards; they’re acknowledgments that every qualifying veteran receives. Gallego wanted to make Babbitt the exception, to use her death as another political prop.
The Precedent We Set
We’re talking about a grieving family who lost a daughter, a wife. They’re not asking for monuments, just the standard military honors that come with seven combat deployments. But Democrats like Gallego can’t even allow that small comfort because politics matter more than people.
What precedent does this set? Should Congress review every deceased veteran’s political views before allowing military honors? Should we establish committees to determine which veterans were sufficiently pure in thought to deserve recognition? Can you believe we’re even having this conversation?
Tuberville called it “petty,” but that’s insufficient. This is cruel. It’s vindictive. The same senators who lecture about compassion for violent criminals wanted to deny basic military rites to someone never even convicted of a crime.
The Constitution doesn’t stop applying when someone dies. Due process doesn’t become optional because politicians want to make an example. Babbitt never faced trial, never had her day in court, never was convicted of the “treason” Gallego proclaimed from his Senate perch. Yet he wanted to execute her memory.
This isn’t about January 6th anymore — this is about who we are as a nation. Do we honor service, or make that honor conditional on political approval? Thankfully, at least one senator remembered what American principles mean.
Key Takeaways
• Democrats attempted to strip military honors from an unconvicted veteran
• Seven combat deployments earned Babbitt standard funeral recognition
• Tuberville blocked the unprecedented political weaponization of military traditions
Sources: BizPac Review, AOL.com, The Hill
