Absolutely disgusting 👉 @walker this shithole npub will bark louder capitalism he Trump administration is now refusing payouts for US soldiers who died in the US-Israeli war against Iran "because it isn't a war," per Telegraph. Libby Klinner, widow of 33-year-old Major Alex Klinner, says the US Air Force deemed her ineligible for additional benefits following her husband's death because Congress has not officially declared war. She says "my husband lost his life because we're in a war, and then I was told that because it's not technically a war, we lose out on something. It all comes down to principle."

Idk why you’re tagging me in this, but since you did, I did the 10 seconds research required to find out you’re incorrect and clearly didn’t even read the full article with corrections… A casualty officer initially gave Libby Klinner incorrect information about certain combat-related pay items. The Air Force later acknowledged the error, audited the file, and confirmed the family received the eligible amounts. There was no policy of withholding core death benefits because Congress never formally declared war. Maj. John “Alex” Klinner, 33, of the 99th Air Refueling Squadron, was one of six crew members killed on March 12, 2026, when a KC-135 crashed in western Iraq while supporting U.S. operations against Iran (Operation Epic Fury). He left a wife and three young children. In late August 2026, Klinner posted that her casualty assistance officer told her some additional benefits (combat-pay related items such as hostile fire/imminent danger pay and combat-zone tax exclusion) were unavailable “because we haven’t officially declared war.” She later told reporters the same thing: her husband died in what she considers a war, yet the family was initially told they would lose something because it was “not technically a war.” That post went viral. What was actually at issue The disputed items were not the main death benefits. Surviving spouses of active-duty service members receive the $100,000 death gratuity, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Survivor Benefit Plan payments, and other standard entitlements regardless of a formal war declaration. Those were not the problem. Hostile Fire Pay / Imminent Danger Pay is $225 per month and is triggered by location or hostile-fire events, not by a congressional declaration of war. Combat-zone tax exclusion works the same way. The Air Force later said those amounts were included in Klinner’s final paycheck but had been incorrectly itemized. Officials admitted they initially gave her inaccurate information. After the public attention, they audited the account and confirmed everything eligible had been paid. Klinner issued a statement saying the impression that benefits had been broadly denied was not accurate. Vice President Vance said the administration would make sure she received what she was entitled to. The Pentagon and Air Force publicly walked back the initial guidance. The larger context The administration has consistently avoided calling the Iran campaign a single continuous “war.” It has used terms like “military conflict,” “intermittent” strikes, and “no active shooting” at times, and it split casualty accounting after an April cease-fire period that later failed. That semantic choice is real and politically contested. It does not, however, change the statutory rules for most military death or combat pays. The Klinner case was a local officer giving the family the wrong explanation, which was then corrected. The Telegraph piece published today reports her original statements and the later clarification that the paycheck already contained the combat-related items. The claim circulating in the quote treats an initial misstatement as ongoing official refusal. That part is not accurate.