This Senate resolution (S. Res. 382) expresses the sense of the Senate that Ashli Babbitt — an Air Force veteran who died on January 6, 2021 — engaged in conduct that disqualifies her from receiving military funeral honors under 10 U.S.C. §985.
The text cites her attempt to breach the Capitol, including climbing through broken glass while carrying a weapon, and rejects the Air Force’s August 15, 2025 decision to grant honors.
Although the resolution does not change statute or compel DoD action, it formalizes the Senate’s view, amplifies oversight pressure on the Air Force, and signals to veterans organizations, military leaders, and the public that Congress considers certain post‑service conduct inconsistent with ceremonial recognition.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution formally states that Babbitt’s January 6 actions constitute “disqualifying conduct” under 10 U.S.C. §985 and declares she is not eligible for military funeral honors; it also reaffirms gratitude to law enforcement and rejects glorifying those who sought to overturn the 2020 election. The text is an expression of the Senate’s sense, not a statutory amendment or an enforceable order.
Who It Affects
Primary audiences include the Department of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force (whose decisions on honors this resolution critiques), military honor detail providers, veterans service organizations, and families of both veterans and January 6 law‑enforcement personnel. It also matters to congressional committees with oversight over veterans and military affairs.
Why It Matters
The resolution places formal congressional pressure on military leadership and frames public expectations about when funeral honors are appropriate, potentially prompting administrative review or policy clarifications. It also contributes to precedent about Congress using sense resolutions to publicly rebuke post‑service conduct and to influence ceremonial practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution compiles factual findings about Ashli Babbitt’s death on January 6, 2021: it records that she was an Air Force veteran who, while carrying a weapon, attempted to breach a locked and barricaded door to the House Speaker’s Lobby, resisted repeated orders by Capitol Police, and tried to climb through shattered glass where an officer intervened. The preamble frames military funeral honors as reserved for service members who upheld their oaths and notes that 10 U.S.C. §985 permits denial of honors where conduct would bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
The operative text contains two short declarations. First, it finds that Babbitt’s conduct qualifies as disqualifying under §985, that rendering military funeral honors to her would bring discredit on the Air Force, and that she is not eligible for such honors.
Second, it reaffirms the Senate’s gratitude to the officers who defended the Capitol and rejects efforts to glorify those who sought to overturn the Constitution.Because the measure is a Senate “sense” resolution, it does not alter law or compel the Secretary of the Air Force to reverse the August 15, 2025 decision to grant honors. Nonetheless, formal congressional condemnation can increase political and administrative costs for the Air Force, invite agency reconsideration, and influence public and stakeholder expectations about when honors are appropriate.
The resolution was introduced by Senator Ruben Gallego and referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, making the committee the natural forum for follow‑up oversight or hearings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
S. Res. 382 is a Senate “sense of the Senate” resolution introduced Sept. 10, 2025 by Sen. Ruben Gallego and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
The resolution invokes 10 U.S.C. §985 as the statutory basis for denying military funeral honors to persons whose conduct would bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
It specifically characterizes the Air Force’s August 15, 2025 decision to grant Babbitt honors as “indefensible, shameful, and a disservice” to servicemembers.
The text contains two operative results: (1) a finding that Babbitt is ineligible for military funeral honors, and (2) a reaffirmation of thanks to the law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol and a rejection of efforts to glorify those who sought to overturn the election.
The resolution is advisory and symbolic—its practical effect depends on whether the Air Force or DoD responds administratively or in policy, not on any legal obligation created by the text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Factual and legal recitals underpinning the Senate’s view
The preamble assembles specific factual statements about Babbitt’s conduct on January 6, 2021 (including carrying a weapon, refusing police orders, forcing entry through broken glass, and an officer’s intervention) and reiterates the purpose of military funeral honors. It also cites 10 U.S.C. §985, establishing the legal concept the resolution relies on: that honors may be denied when conduct would bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. Practically, the preamble supplies the Senate’s evidentiary framing and political rationale for the operative findings.
Declares disqualification under 10 U.S.C. §985
This clause states the Senate’s determination that Babbitt’s January 6 conduct meets the statute’s disqualifying standard and that granting honors would bring discredit upon the Air Force. Functionally, the clause is a declaratory finding: it asserts a legal conclusion about eligibility but contains no enforcement mechanism. Its practical effect is reputational and evidentiary — a congressional record that stakeholders can cite in any administrative or public debate.
Reaffirms gratitude to law enforcement and rejects glorification
This clause shifts from individual eligibility to broader normative language: it thanks the officers who defended the Capitol and explicitly rejects efforts to glorify the January 6 attackers. That language serves to frame the resolution as both punitive toward the individual case and protective of institutional honor, signaling congressional priorities on memorialization and public messaging.
Introduced by Senator Gallego and referred to Veterans’ Affairs
The resolution’s footer records sponsorship (Sen. Ruben Gallego), the introduction date (Sept. 10, 2025), and its referral to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Those procedural entries matter because committee activity would be the vehicle for hearings, requests for documents from DoD, or additional non‑binding resolutions that amplify or moderate the initial statement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Capitol law‑enforcement personnel and their families — the resolution publicly affirms their sacrifice and positions congressional sentiment against honoring those who tried to harm them, which can carry moral and symbolic support.
- Veterans and veterans’ organizations that prioritize the perceived integrity of military honors — the resolution reinforces a boundary against conflating post‑service criminal or seditious acts with ceremonial recognition.
- Policymakers and oversight committees focused on military standards — the text gives them a congressional record and rhetorical leverage to press the Air Force or DoD for explanations or policy changes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Air Force and the Department of Defense — they face reputational harm and heightened political pressure to justify or reverse the August 15, 2025 honors decision, which can distract from operational priorities.
- Ashli Babbitt’s family or next of kin — the resolution publicly endorses denial of honors, affecting the family’s ability to receive ceremonial recognition tied to military service.
- DoD administrative resources and staff — if the Air Force or DoD initiates reviews, appeals, or policy clarifications in response, personnel time and legal resources will be necessary to manage the process and any associated public affairs work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting the integrity and public meaning of military funeral honors — ensuring they are not conferred on individuals who actively sought to subvert democratic institutions — and preserving the military’s institutional independence from political signaling; using non‑binding congressional condemnations can safeguard honor standards but also risks politicizing ceremonial decisions that military leaders have historically controlled.
The measure rests on a statutory phrase — persons whose conduct would “bring discredit upon the Armed Forces” — that is inherently discretionary and fact‑dependent. Applying that standard posthumously raises procedural and evidentiary questions: what factfinding or review process, if any, should govern a reversal or denial of honors; how much deference should the military give to a congressional expression of disapproval; and whether families of the deceased have statutory or administrative avenues to appeal.
The resolution’s symbolic nature both empowers and limits it. It imposes no direct legal duty on the Air Force, yet public congressional condemnation can create significant political pressure.
That dynamic risks institutionalizing a new tool of reputational discipline — Congress may increase the use of sense resolutions to influence military ceremonial decisions, which could politicize traditionally apolitical honors and complicate commanders’ discretion in sensitive personnel and ceremonial matters.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.