The Navy is investigating Democratic congressional candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar over allegations that he misused his military service to boost his campaign, including calling himself a "Navy Officer" when he is a reservist and staging what critics call political photo ops at a Korean War veteran's grave in a national cemetery, the New York Post reported.
The backlash from military veterans has been swift and blunt. Multiple combat veterans, including a former state deputy secretary for veterans affairs, have publicly condemned Campa-Najjar, accusing him of exploiting the uniform and desecrating sacred ground for political gain.
Campa-Najjar, who has been a Navy Reserve officer only since 2023, is now on his third run for Congress, seeking an east San Diego seat. His campaign has already edited materials to note his reserve status and removed the gravesite photo from his website. But for the veterans watching, the damage is done, and the Navy's investigation remains open.
At the center of the controversy is a photo taken at the Massachusetts National Cemetery, at the grave of Richard K. Stephenson, a Korean War veteran who died in 1997. Campa-Najjar's campaign used the image on his website. His campaign manager, Andi McNew, told the Post that Campa-Najjar did not know Stephenson.
McNew described the photo as taken while Campa-Najjar was "participating in an official Memorial Day event where he, alongside his unit, honored fallen service members." She insisted the campaign did nothing wrong.
McNew stated:
"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."
Federal law and Veterans Affairs regulations strictly prohibit campaign activity at national cemeteries. That prohibition exists for a reason most Americans understand instinctively: those grounds belong to the dead and the families who mourn them, not to candidates looking for a backdrop.
The campaign's defense, that the photo came from an official Memorial Day event, raises its own question. If the event was official military duty, how did the image end up on a political campaign website? That gap between "official event" and "campaign material" is precisely the kind of line the Navy's investigation appears to be examining.
Elizabeth Perez-Rodriguez, a Navy combat veteran, Vista entrepreneur, and former CalVet deputy secretary, said she once backed Campa-Najjar. 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 sharper still:
"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, framed it in terms that should transcend party lines:
"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."
That last voice matters. Van Riper is no Republican operative. He organized for Obama. When a Democratic-aligned veteran calls your conduct one of the most cynical ploys he's ever seen, the usual partisan-attack defense doesn't hold.
Beyond the gravesite photos, Campa-Najjar described himself as a "Navy Officer" in campaign materials. Navy reservists running for office are required to accurately state their reserve status. Dropping the word "Reserve" is not a minor omission, it implies a level of active-duty commitment and service that a reservist since 2023 has not demonstrated.
After scrutiny, the campaign edited its materials. McNew told the Post that "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." She added that Campa-Najjar "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."
A Navy spokesperson confirmed the investigation in spare terms: "The Navy is looking into the matter. We have nothing further to provide."
The campaign's willingness to correct the record only after getting caught does not inspire confidence. If the distinction between "officer" and "reserve officer" didn't matter, why change it? And if it did matter, why was it wrong in the first place?
Campa-Najjar's political history in the San Diego area suggests a candidate who shifts his identity to match whatever electorate he's courting. He ran for Congress in 2018 "as a lefty," in the Post's description, and lost. In 2020, he embraced conservative positions for his second congressional bid. He lost again. In 2022, he ran as a liberal for Chula Vista mayor and was defeated by Republican John McCann.
Now, on his third try for Congress, the military credentials have moved to the foreground. He joined the Navy Reserve in 2023, conveniently between his mayoral loss and this latest campaign. The timeline invites skepticism about whether the uniform is a calling or a costume change.
This kind of political shape-shifting is hardly unique to Campa-Najjar, but the military dimension makes it worse. Voters can forgive a candidate who adjusts positions on zoning or tax policy. Inflating military service is a different category. It trades on the sacrifice of people who earned their records the hard way, people like Richard K. Stephenson, who served in Korea and has been dead for nearly three decades.
Campa-Najjar's girlfriend, Rep. Sara Jacobs, identified by the Post as a Qualcomm heiress, along with her family members have poured more than $200,000 into his failed campaigns for office in the San Diego area. Three losses and counting, bankrolled by a wealthy Democratic congresswoman's family. The arrangement raises obvious questions about whether Campa-Najjar's serial candidacies reflect genuine public demand or the preferences of a well-funded political network.
The veterans' criticisms were shared by Marni Von Wilpert, a Democrat running for California's 48th Congressional District. That a fellow Democrat circulated the attacks suggests the discomfort with Campa-Najjar's conduct extends beyond partisan lines, or, at minimum, that his primary rivals see vulnerability.
Democratic candidates trading on manufactured credentials is not a new phenomenon. Voters have seen it in Minnesota, where Democratic officials have pandered their way through scandals, and in cases where federal fraud enforcement has struggled to keep pace with institutional dishonesty. The pattern is familiar: say whatever it takes, claim whatever credential helps, and hope nobody checks.
The Navy's investigation remains in its early stages, and the scope is unclear. The Post did not report a specific start date or what disciplinary actions, if any, the Navy might pursue. But the mere fact of a military investigation into a sitting reservist's campaign conduct is unusual and serious.
If the Navy determines that Campa-Najjar misrepresented his status or used his service improperly for political purposes, the consequences could range from administrative action to something more significant. For a candidate whose entire pitch now leans on military credibility, even a formal finding of misrepresentation would be politically devastating.
Several questions remain unanswered. What specific campaign materials carried the "Navy Officer" label without the reserve designation? When exactly were the gravesite photos taken, and who directed their use on the campaign website? Did anyone in the campaign consult VA regulations before posting an image taken at a national cemetery? The campaign's responses so far have been defensive and vague, long on assertions of pride, short on specifics.
Scandals involving Democratic officials and their families have become a recurring feature of the political landscape, from newly surfaced records tying a Democratic senator's son to disgraced figures to criminal charges against relatives of former Democratic members of Congress. The common thread is a sense that the rules apply to everyone else.
What makes this story cut deeper than a typical résumé-padding scandal is the gravesite. Richard K. Stephenson served in Korea. He died in 1997. He cannot speak for himself. His grave at the Massachusetts National Cemetery exists to honor his sacrifice, not to lend gravitas to a three-time losing candidate's website.
Campa-Najjar's campaign removed the photo after the controversy broke. That concession tells you what the campaign itself understood about the optics. But optics is the wrong word. This is about conduct. Federal law bars campaign activity at national cemeteries because the nation decided, rightly, that those places are set apart.
A candidate who treats a dead veteran's headstone as a campaign prop, and who drops the word "Reserve" from his title to sound more impressive, is telling voters something important about his character, whether he means to or not.
The Navy is investigating. The veterans have spoken. The rest is up to the voters of east San Diego, and to a candidate who owes them, at minimum, a straight answer.
