Hegseth upgrades Abbey Gate Marines’ valor awards after 5-year delay: ‘Those days are over’
Developing story first seen 4 hours ago
The awards for three Marines who acted during the Abbey Gate bombing have now been formally upgraded at a Pentagon ceremony, with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth saying their original nominations had been improperly downgraded. The move, announced on the fifth anniversary of the attack, adds fresh official recognition of their actions during the final US evacuation from Afghanistan.
Gunnery Sgt Jonathan Eby and Lance Cpl Jordan Houston received Bronze Star Medals with “V” devices for valour, while Cpl Michael Gretzon received the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a “V” device. The ISIS-K suicide bombing on 26 August 2021 killed 13 US service members; a continuing review panel says it has recently recovered classified documents that it alleges were previously withheld.
- Three Marines received upgraded valour awards.
- The ceremony marked five years since Abbey Gate.
- A Pentagon panel reports newly recovered classified material.
New here? Start with this
The Abbey Gate bombing took place outside Kabul airport on 26 August 2021, during the final days of the United States-led evacuation from Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghan civilians and foreign nationals were trying to reach flights as the Taliban returned to power, while US and allied troops controlled parts of the airport.
The attack was carried out by ISIS-K, the Afghan branch of the Islamic State group, which is separate from the Taliban and has fought against it. Thirteen US service members and many Afghan civilians were killed, making it one of the deadliest incidents for US forces in the war’s final phase.
Military medals can be awarded at different levels, and a “V” device indicates that an award recognises acts of valour in combat. The case has remained politically and emotionally significant because it concerns the evacuation, decisions made around airport security, and whether those involved received appropriate recognition.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the upgrades argue that Marines who demonstrated exceptional courage under attack deserve recognition matching the reality of their actions, regardless of how long a correction takes. They contend that if original recommendations were reduced without sound justification, reviewing newly recovered records is essential both for fairness to the individuals and for maintaining service members’ confidence that valour will be judged impartially.
The case against
Those urging caution argue that military decorations require consistent, evidence-based standards and should not be revisited chiefly because of political pressure or anniversary symbolism. They may support a full review of any newly available classified material, while maintaining that claims of improper downgrading should be independently substantiated and that earlier decisions should not be presumed corrupt simply because a later panel reaches a different view.
More coverage