The U.S. Navy has opened an investigation into Democratic congressional candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar over allegations that he inflated his military service record and used a deceased Korean War veteran's gravesite as a campaign prop, drawing fierce condemnation from combat veterans across the political spectrum, as first reported by the New York Post.
Campa-Najjar, who is running for an east San Diego congressional seat and dating billionaire Qualcomm heiress Rep. Sara Jacobs, described himself as a "Navy Officer" in campaign materials, without disclosing that he is, in fact, a Navy Reserve officer who joined the reserves only in 2023. His campaign website also featured a photograph of him saluting at the Massachusetts National Cemetery gravesite of Richard K. Stephenson, a Korean War veteran who died in 1997. Campa-Najjar had no relationship with Stephenson.
The gap between the image Campa-Najjar projected and the reality of his service has now drawn a Navy inquiry and a wall of criticism from veterans who say the candidate treated sacred ground and military credentials as political accessories.
Campaign activity at national cemeteries is strictly prohibited under Veterans Affairs regulations. Yet Campa-Najjar's website displayed a photo of him in uniform at Stephenson's grave, a man he never knew, at a cemetery governed by federal rules barring exactly this kind of use.
His campaign manager, Andi McNew, told the Post that Campa-Najjar was simply "participating in an official Memorial Day event where he, alongside his unit, honored fallen service members." McNew insisted no political activity occurred at the cemetery:
"At no point did the campaign engage in political activity at a VA cemetery, and any suggestion otherwise is a misrepresentation of both the facts and the applicable rules."
But the photo ended up on a campaign website. That is a distinction veterans found hard to overlook.
The "Navy Officer" label raised a separate set of concerns. A related report noted that Campa-Najjar used that title in campaign filings and on social media before later updating his materials to clarify his Reserve status. The Navy said it is also examining whether he violated Department of Defense rules against campaigning in military uniform.
A Navy spokesperson offered a terse confirmation of the probe:
"The Navy is looking into the matter. We have nothing further to provide."
The backlash came from veterans who span the political spectrum, a detail that makes the criticism harder to dismiss as partisan.
Elizabeth Perez-Rodriguez, a Navy combat veteran, former CalVet deputy secretary, and Vista entrepreneur, said she had backed Campa-Najjar in the past. Not anymore.
"I supported Ammar in the past, but won't again. As a combat veteran, I can't stand when political candidates exploit the uniform for politics and using a veteran's gravesite in your campaign is toxic and disrespectful."
Army combat veteran Michael Malach was blunter:
"All these allegations are damning and show a complete disregard for what military service and wearing the uniform should mean. Shame on Campa-Najjar and anyone who supported these cynical political stunts, especially using posed portraits at a deceased veteran's grave to try and boost his campaign."
Brian Van Riper, a Marine Corps combat veteran and former organizer for President Barack Obama, called it one of the worst things he's seen in politics. Van Riper told the Post:
"Our national cemeteries are sacred ground, not political backdrops. Using a service member's gravesite at a VA cemetery for political campaign photos is among the most disrespectful, distasteful and cynical political ploys I've ever seen."
Van Riper also framed the issue as one of basic honesty. "There's a matter of integrity," he said. "Veterans can immediately smell this out quickly."
These reactions were shared publicly by Marni Von Wilpert, a Democrat running for the 48th Congressional District, meaning Campa-Najjar is taking fire from within his own party, not just from Republicans.
This is Campa-Najjar's third run for Congress, and his political identity has shifted with each attempt. He lost a congressional bid in 2018 campaigning, as the Post described it, "as a lefty." In 2020, he lost again after embracing more conservative positions. In 2022, he ran for Chula Vista mayor "as a liberal" and lost to Republican John McCann.
Through it all, Rep. Sara Jacobs and her family members have thrown more than $200,000 at Campa-Najjar's failed campaigns for office in the San Diego area. The financial backing from a billionaire heiress has not translated into electoral success, and the latest controversy over his military credentials may explain why voters have repeatedly said no.
The question of how candidates present their credentials, military, legal, or otherwise, is one that voters and institutions alike are increasingly forced to adjudicate. The recent DOJ fight over a Biden-appointed judge's authority to restore a security clearance shows how contested these credentialing disputes have become across government.
McNew acknowledged that Campa-Najjar did not know Richard K. Stephenson. She said the gravesite photo has since been removed from the website, and campaign materials have been edited to note his reserve status.
McNew also pushed back on the broader narrative, telling the Post:
"While the Navy has not requested any changes be made, the campaign is happy to include additional details of Ammar's service to the nation. Ammar is a proud Navy Reserve Officer who has been on active duty status throughout periods of his career, including in the Phillipines, as well as at Pacific Fleet Head Quarters and Fort Meade."
The defense amounts to this: the candidate served honorably in a reserve capacity, participated in a legitimate Memorial Day ceremony, and has now corrected any ambiguity in his materials. The Navy, McNew noted, has not asked for changes.
But the Navy is investigating. And the corrections came after the problems were spotted, not before.
Several questions hang over the story. When exactly were the gravesite photos taken, and who decided to place them on a campaign website? What specific federal statutes or VA regulations may have been violated? When did the Navy open its inquiry, and what is its scope? The campaign's claim that Campa-Najjar attended an "official Memorial Day event" raises the question of how a photo from a military ceremony ended up serving a political campaign, and whether anyone in the chain of command approved its use.
The distinction between "Navy Officer" and "Navy Reserve officer" may sound technical to civilians. It does not sound technical to anyone who has served. Active-duty officers and reservists hold different obligations, undergo different schedules, and occupy different roles. Dropping the word "Reserve" from your title on campaign filings and social media is not a typo. It is a choice.
Campa-Najjar's situation is not a case of stolen valor in the strict legal sense, he did join the Navy Reserve, and his campaign says he served on active duty during portions of his career. But inflating a title and staging photos at a stranger's grave to build a military brand for a congressional campaign is a different kind of offense. It cheapens the service of every veteran who earned their record the hard way and never thought to use a headstone as a backdrop.
The veterans who spoke out did not need a partisan reason to be angry. They needed only eyes and a sense of honor. Elizabeth Perez-Rodriguez served in combat. Michael Malach served in combat. Brian Van Riper served in combat. They looked at Campa-Najjar's campaign materials and saw something that didn't add up. The Navy apparently agreed it was worth a closer look.
Three failed campaigns, more than $200,000 in heiress-backed funding, a rotating set of political identities, and now an inflated military record under federal investigation. At some point, voters are entitled to ask what, exactly, is real.
When a man who has been a reservist for two years photographs himself at a stranger's grave and calls himself a "Navy Officer" on the campaign trail, the uniform isn't serving the country. It's serving the candidate.
