Pentagon Struggling To Determine Which Troop Families Should Fall Under Gold Star Status

The Pentagon is grappling with how to determine which families of fallen troops fall under the “Gold Star” status.

To formally receive the Gold Star classification, a family’s relative serving in the U.S. military has to have died or been killed during a combat operation. But some families whose relatives died in non-combat incidents are urging the Pentagon to declare them Gold Star families as well, and the Pentagon has been weighing expanding the scope of the title to include them — but hasn’t made any final determinations, The Washington Post reported on Monday.

A working group appointed by the Biden administration and approved by Congress has spent months working on what the definition of a Gold Star family should be. But after the Post sent several inquiries to the Pentagon, it abruptly pulled the working group’s proposed definition just as it was awaiting final approval.

A Pentagon spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the proposal was withdrawn because more time was needed for the review process.

“The Department of Defense expects to resubmit the rule to [the Office of Budget and Management] at an appropriate time to restart this part of the rulemaking process,” the spokesperson told the DCNF.

There is an ongoing dispute as to who should fall under the Gold Star status. Over 20 people familiar with the issue who spoke to the Post said that whatever decision is made — whether to keep the current definition confined to combat-related deaths or to expand it to include deaths from suicide, illness or accident — is likely to spark criticism among some and relief f0r others.

On one side of the issue, some people believe that the Gold Star title should only be relegated to families whose relatives died in combat, given the nature of their deaths, according to the Post. This view is supported by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair and retired Gen. Mark Milley, who told the Post that the status is a “unique and special honor for those who have given their lives in defense of this nation in combat.”

Others who spoke to the Post said that changing the definition isn’t necessary to recognize and honor grieving families, regardless of how their relative died.

“What I wouldn’t want to do, is for the sake of inclusivity not appropriately honor those who truly made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country,” Allison Jaslow, an Iraq War veteran and CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told the Post.

There is support on the other side to expand the definition, including among families whose relatives died during their time in service but not from combat-related causes. The pain of grieving families is only exasperated by “this divisive ‘you’re a Gold Star and you’re not,” Andy Weiss, father of a former Army Ranger who died by suicide in 2012, told the Post. It is “ridiculous” to create a distinction, he told the Post.

The Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), one of the organizations at the forefront of the conversation, sent a letter to senior lawmakers in June urging Congress to adopt an “inclusive definition” so that families whose relatives died in non-combat scenarios could be labeled as Gold Star families, according to the Post.

Doing so would bring over 3 million people into the fold and include survivors, who would be eligible to receive any future government benefits litigated by Congress, TAPS wrote in the letter, according to a copy obtained by the Post. TAPS is also in support of bipartisan legislation put forward by Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst to create a new federal holiday — Gold Star Families Day — that would celebrate any servicemember who died “while serving in the Armed Forces” a definition broader than the current Gold Star qualifications.

Some Gold Star families and senior defense officials were critical of the legislation, and a number of co-sponsors dropped their support, effectively killing its chances of being passed into law, according to multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke to the Post.

“It is incredibly difficult to thread the needle with the precise words so that you don’t offend someone who’s loved one died of natural causes, died in a training accident, died of suicide, died of anything other than combat,” Tony Cordero, president of Sons and Daughters in Touch and son of a servicemember who died in combat, told the Post. “Because the minute you use the wrong word, the entire conversation descends into an emotional mess, and that’s not good for anybody.”