U.S. agrees to settle suit over police shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot

Los Angeles Times - May 3rd, 2025

The Trump administration has reached a preliminary settlement agreement in a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The lawsuit, seeking $30 million, alleged that the officer acted negligently and failed to de-escalate the situation when Babbitt attempted to climb through a barricaded door. While the officer was cleared of wrongdoing by the U.S. attorney’s office and the Capitol Police, the settlement terms have not been disclosed, and the agreement is yet to be finalized.

This development adds another layer to the legal and political ramifications of the January 6 insurrection, a day of chaos that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The case highlights ongoing debates about law enforcement actions and accountability during the riot, as well as the broader implications of President Trump's pardoning of rioters and his subsequent political resurgence. The situation underscores tensions around the handling of the insurrection and its aftermath, with the settlement suggesting a potential resolution to one of its many legal battles.

Capitol Riot Trump Administration January 6 Insurrection Capitol Police Ashli Babbitt Wrongful Death Lawsuit Settlement Agreement

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of the legal proceedings surrounding Ashli Babbitt's death during the January 6 Capitol riot. It effectively captures public interest by addressing significant legal and political issues. However, the accuracy and balance are somewhat compromised by unverified claims and a slight skew towards one perspective. The article is well-written and clear, making it accessible to a wide audience, but it could benefit from more transparent sourcing and a broader range of viewpoints. Overall, the story is a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions about accountability and justice in politically charged situations, though it requires careful reading due to some factual ambiguities.

Accuracy

The article provides a generally accurate account of the preliminary settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Ashli Babbitt’s estate. It accurately reports the lawsuit's filing and amount, as well as the exoneration of Officer Byrd by both the U.S. attorney’s office and the Capitol Police. However, the claim regarding President Trump pardoning or commuting sentences for over 1,500 individuals from the January 6 riots is misleading, as there is no evidence to support such a large number of pardons. Additionally, the article's mention of charges against Trump being dropped after an election win lacks corroboration, which affects the overall accuracy score.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives on the incident, including the lawsuit's allegations and the officer’s defense. However, it leans slightly towards the narrative of wrongdoing by the officer, as evidenced by the detailed description of the lawsuit's claims. The article could benefit from more balanced coverage by including a broader range of viewpoints, such as additional context from Babbitt's family or legal experts on the case's implications.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a coherent narrative of the events and legal proceedings. The language is straightforward, making it accessible to a general audience. However, the inclusion of unverified claims without sufficient context can create confusion for readers trying to understand the full scope of the situation.

Source quality

The article cites statements from the Justice Department and attorneys involved in the case, which are credible sources. However, it lacks direct quotes or attributions to specific individuals, which could strengthen the reporting. The absence of named sources for some claims, such as the large number of pardons, also affects the source quality score.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the situation, such as the events of January 6 and the legal proceedings. However, it lacks transparency in terms of how certain claims were verified or sourced. The article could improve by clearly explaining the basis for its claims, particularly those that are less commonly reported or potentially controversial.