The administration of former President Donald Trump has reportedly agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement with the family of Ashli Babbitt, a woman fatally shot by law enforcement during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Lawyers have told a federal judge that a settlement has been reached in principle to resolve a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from Babbitt's shooting, which had originally sought $30 million in damages, Breitbart News reported.
Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran, was shot by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd as she attempted to climb through a shattered window near the House Speaker’s lobby. The shooting occurred amid the chaos of the Capitol breach, where rioters tried to halt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
The wrongful death suit was filed by Babbitt’s family in early 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The family alleged that Babbitt was unarmed, posed no threat, and was not affiliated with any unlawful actions. They initially sought $30 million in compensation from the government.
On May 2, 2025, attorneys representing both the Babbitt family and the federal government informed U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes that they had reached an agreement in principle. The parties reported the development during a scheduled court hearing but noted that no final agreement had been signed at that time.
The judge instructed the lawyers to return with an update by the following Thursday, signaling the matter is still pending finalization. Two individuals familiar with the case disclosed that the settlement amount will total just under $5 million, according to reports.
Although a binding resolution has not been officially recorded, the disclosure of a preliminary agreement marks a significant step toward closing a high-profile civil case linked to the January 6 riot.
Initially, the Department of Justice opposed the lawsuit filed by the Babbitt estate. The change in posture came in May 2024 when the Justice Department shifted its approach and entered settlement discussions with the plaintiff’s legal team.
Back in 2021, the department had conducted an investigation into the event and found there was not enough evidence to prosecute Lt. Byrd for a civil rights violation. That decision was aligned with a separate inquiry by the Capitol Police, which concluded that Byrd had acted lawfully under the circumstances.
According to that internal review, the officer’s actions “may have prevented serious injury or death,” given that members of Congress and staffers remained trapped in nearby areas during the breach.
Despite those findings, Babbitt’s family pressed forward with civil litigation. They argued that Babbitt’s death was an unjust use of deadly force and that no lawful justification existed for the shooting. The lawsuit asserted that she was not armed and did not pose any danger to officers or lawmakers.
The legal filing emphasized that Babbitt “was not part of a group or for any unlawful or nefarious purpose.” Her family maintained that she simply passed into a restricted area without any threatening intent or violent behavior.
In defense of Lt. Byrd, his attorney, Mark E. Schamel, responded to ongoing questions surrounding the officer’s decision. “Consistent with the most recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the use of force by officers,” Schamel stated, “Lieutenant Byrd did exactly what he was supposed to have done that day to protect the elected officials he was sworn to protect.”
Before the news of the settlement surfaced, the case had been scheduled for a jury trial in July 2026. That timeline would have placed the legal showdown after the 2024 presidential election and well into the next term of any incoming administration.
Instead, if finalized, the nearly $5 million agreement would resolve the dispute outside the courtroom and avoid a prolonged and potentially politically charged trial. Legal experts anticipate further details to emerge once a filing of the finalized settlement takes place in federal court. For now, both parties have refrained from public comment pending official court confirmation. The judge’s directive for an update suggests a finalized agreement could be imminent.
