Sacred Trust or Illicit Trade? The Illegality of Buying or Selling the Medal of Honor

The Unassailable Honor of the Medal of Honor

The Medal of Honor stands as the United States’ highest military decoration, bestowed upon individuals for “gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty.” It is an award that transcends mere recognition, embodying the ultimate sacrifice, profound courage, and unwavering commitment to national ideals. Its unique symbolic weight makes it distinct from any other honor, representing the pinnacle of military heroism and selflessness.

Given its unparalleled status, a critical question arises: can this sacred symbol, representing such profound valor, be bought, sold, or otherwise treated as a commercial commodity? This inquiry immediately highlights the tension between its inherent symbolic value and any potential for commodification. This report will unequivocally demonstrate that, under U.S. federal law, the commercial trade of the Medal of Honor is strictly prohibited. This definitive answer sets the stage for a meticulous legal and historical examination of the statutes governing its protection. Understanding these legal protections is paramount for various stakeholders, including military personnel, their families, historical collectors, and the general public, as it ensures the preservation of the Medal’s integrity, safeguards its profound meaning, and prevents its desecration through illicit trade.

An Unequivocal Prohibition: Yes, Selling the Medal of Honor is Illegal

It is unequivocally illegal under U.S. federal law to buy, sell, barter for, trade, manufacture, or ship the Medal of Honor. This prohibition is a cornerstone of federal statutes designed to protect the sanctity of military decorations. The primary U.S. federal statute criminalizing these actions is 18 U.S. Code § 704 – Military medals or decorations. This statute outlines the specific prohibitions and penalties associated with the unlawful handling of military honors, with particular emphasis on the Medal of Honor.

This prohibition has been consistently reaffirmed and strengthened through significant legislative actions. The Stolen Valor Acts of 2005 and 2013 specifically address and reinforce the illegality of such transactions. As stated by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, “Yes. The Stolen Valor Acts of 2005 and 2013 (Public Law 109-437 and 113-12) address this issue. The 2005 Law makes…source including replicas, indicates a primary concern with the commodification of the physical object.

The subsequent 2013 amendment, by clarifying that it is illegal to “fraudulently claim… to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit,” points to a secondary, but equally important, concern: preventing individuals from profiting from false claims of valor. This is a distinct, though related, form of disrespect, focusing on the intangible honor rather than solely the physical medal.

This dual legislative strategy underscores that the law is designed to protect both the tangible (the physical medal from illicit trade) and intangible (the honor and integrity from fraudulent appropriation for material gain) aspects of the Medal of Honor. The legal framework is therefore a sophisticated design to safeguard the Medal comprehensively, addressing various forms of potential abuse and desecration.

The Letter of the Law: Deconstructing 18 U.S. Code § 704

18 U.S. Code § 704 serves as the foundational federal statute governing military medals and decorations. While it broadly covers various awards, it contains specific, significantly stricter provisions tailored to the Medal of Honor, reflecting its unique national importance.

General Prohibitions on Military Decorations (Subsection a)

Subsection (a) of 18 U.S.C. § 704 broadly applies to “any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof”. This expansive definition covers a wide array of military honors, including replicas or imitations that could be used to deceive.  

The statute meticulously lists a comprehensive array of prohibited actions: “Whoever knowingly purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value…”. This broad language is crucial, as it covers nearly every conceivable commercial transaction involving these items, as well as their unauthorized creation and movement. A key element for prosecution under subsection (a) is the requirement that the individual act “knowingly”. This means the prosecution must prove that the person was aware they were engaging in the prohibited conduct, i.e., they knew they were buying, selling, or manufacturing a military medal or decoration. For violations involving general military decorations under subsection (a), the prescribed penalties are a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.  

Specific Prohibitions and Enhanced Penalties for the Medal of Honor (Subsection c)

This subsection specifically elevates the penalties when the Medal of Honor is involved. It states: “If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both”. This means that any of the prohibited actions listed in subsection (a), when applied to the Medal of Honor, trigger these significantly higher penalties.  

The statute provides a precise definition of what constitutes a “Congressional Medal of Honor” for the purposes of this law: “In this subsection, the term ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ means— (A) a medal of honor awarded under section 7271, 8291, or 9271 of title 10 or section 491 of title 14; (B) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 7284, 8306, or 9284 of title 10 or section 504 of title 14; or (C) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under section 7277, 8303, or 9277 of title 10 or section 501 of title 14”. This comprehensive definition ensures that all authentic versions, including duplicates and replacements, are covered. All actions prohibited by subsection (a) are specifically prohibited for the Medal of Honor, but with the enhanced penalties detailed in subsection (c). The penalties for offenses involving the Medal of Honor are a fine under this title, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. This represents a doubling of the maximum imprisonment term compared to other medals under subsection (a), underscoring the severe nature of violating the Medal of Honor’s protections. The “knowingly” standard from subsection (a) directly applies to the trafficking of the Medal of Honor under subsection (c). Therefore, for a conviction, the individual must have been aware that they were engaging in a prohibited transaction involving a Medal of Honor.  

While the definition in (c)(2) primarily refers to authentic, duplicate, or replacement Medals of Honor, the broader language in subsection (a) (which subsection (c) enhances) includes “any colorable imitation thereof”. Furthermore, the 2005 Stolen Valor Act explicitly prohibited the buying or selling of the Medal of Honor, “including replicas or reproductions”. This indicates that trafficking in convincing fakes, especially if intended to deceive, falls under the statute. The high-profile H.L.I. Lordship Industries case involved the illegal manufacturing and sale of “unauthorized Medals of Honor” , confirming that the law targets the production and commercial distribution of non-authentic medals.  

Fraudulent Claims vs. Trafficking: Understanding 18 U.S. Code § 704(b)

It is crucial to differentiate subsection (b) from the trafficking prohibitions in (a) and (c). Subsection (b) addresses a distinct offense: “Fraudulent Representations About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals.” This section focuses on individuals who falsely claim to have received a medal, rather than those who traffic the physical medal itself.

The statute states: “Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) or (d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both”. Unlike the “knowingly” standard for trafficking, subsection (b) requires a specific, higher level of intent: “with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit”. This means the false claim must be made with the explicit purpose of gaining a material advantage, such as employment, contracts, or public office. This subsection is a direct legislative response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in  

United States v. Alvarez (discussed in Section IV), which struck down parts of the earlier Stolen Valor Act that criminalized false claims without this “tangible benefit” requirement. The 2013 Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 704(b) to include this crucial element, making it constitutional.  

Enhanced Penalties for Other Distinguished Medals (Subsection d)

Subsection (d) extends enhanced penalties, mirroring those for the Medal of Honor (up to 1 year imprisonment or fine or both), to offenses under subsection (a) that involve other highly distinguished military medals. These include the Distinguished-Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, and certain combat badges. The statute specifically defines “combat badge” in this context to mean a “Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Combat Action Badge, Combat Medical Badge, Combat Action Ribbon, or Combat Action Medal”.  

The distinction between 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) (which applies to Medal of Honor sale via (c)) and § 704(b) is critical for understanding the law’s scope. For trafficking (buying/selling) the Medal of Honor, the prosecution only needs to prove the defendant knew they were engaging in a prohibited transaction involving a military decoration (specifically, a Medal of Honor for enhanced penalties). There is no requirement to prove an intent to defraud or profit from claiming the medal. The act of commodifying the medal itself is the offense. In contrast, for false representation (claiming to have received a medal), the law requires a specific fraudulent intent to gain a material advantage. This distinction arose directly from the United States v. Alvarez Supreme Court decision, which protected false speech without such intent. This highlights that the legal framework targets two distinct types of harm related to military honors: the desecration of the physical medal through commercialization (covered by (a) and (c)) and the fraudulent exploitation of military honor for personal gain (covered by (b)). The differing mental state requirements reflect the distinct nature of these offenses, with the “knowingly” standard for trafficking being a lower bar than the “intent to obtain tangible benefit” for false claims. The precise legal drafting of 18 U.S.C. § 704 demonstrates a sophisticated approach to protecting military honors, distinguishing between the commercial integrity of the physical medal and the fraudulent appropriation of the honor itself. The law is designed to be robust against both forms of “stolen valor.”

Table 1: Key Prohibited Actions and Penalties under 18 U.S. Code § 704 (Medal of Honor vs. Other Medals)

The various subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 704, with their differing scopes, mental state requirements, and penalties, can be intricate for a non-legal expert to grasp. This table provides a clear, concise, and visually organized comparison. By presenting the data side-by-side, the table effectively emphasizes the Medal of Honor’s singular legal protection, which includes a higher maximum imprisonment term for trafficking compared to general medals. It also clarifies that other high-level medals receive similar enhanced penalties. For collectors, military personnel, and the general public, this table distills complex legal text into an easily digestible format, serving as a quick reference for the core prohibitions and their consequences. The table explicitly differentiates between the “knowingly” standard for trafficking and the “intent to obtain tangible benefit” for fraudulent claims, a crucial legal nuance that is often misunderstood and directly addresses the impact of the Alvarez decision.

Historical Roots: Why This Law Exists

The legal framework protecting military decorations has evolved over nearly a century, reflecting a growing national commitment to safeguarding these symbols of valor.

Early Legislation

The original codification of 18 U.S.C. § 704 was based on a 1923 law (section 1425 of title 10, U.S.C., 1940 ed.), initially focused on Army and Air Force decorations. This 1948 Act expanded its scope to include medals from the Navy Department. Further refinement occurred with the 1949 Act, which clarified the wording to “embrace all service decorations awarded to members of the armed forces whether by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or other branch of such forces”. This ensured comprehensive coverage across all military branches. Prior to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, federal law (18 U.S.C. § 704) primarily criminalized the “unauthorized wearing, manufacture, or sale of medals and badges,” with a general penalty structure.  

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-437)

Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, this act marked a significant expansion of federal protections for military honors. Its purpose was to broaden previous law, making it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. The legislative intent was clear: “Fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor… damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals”.  

The 2005 Act significantly amended 18 U.S.C. § 704. It substituted a much broader list of prohibited actions in subsection (a) (including purchases, solicitations, mailing, shipping, importing, exporting, advertising, trading, bartering, and exchanging for value) for the previous, narrower “manufactures, or sells”. It also added the original subsection (b) concerning false claims and subsection (d) for enhanced penalties for other distinguished medals. The Act increased penalties, stipulating imprisonment for up to six months for general false claims, and up to one year if the decoration falsely claimed was the Medal of Honor.  

The Supreme Court’s Ruling in United States v. Alvarez (2012)

The constitutionality of the 2005 Act, particularly its provision criminalizing false verbal or written claims of receiving military decorations (the original § 704(b)), was challenged on First Amendment grounds. On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The Court reasoned that simply lying about receiving a medal, without an intent to obtain a tangible benefit, constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. This landmark ruling struck down the  

false claims portion of the 2005 Act that lacked the “tangible benefit” requirement. However, it is crucial to note that the Alvarez decision did not invalidate the provisions related to the unauthorized manufacture, sale, or trade of medals (i.e., the trafficking prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) and (c)). These provisions fall under different legal principles concerning commercial regulation and the protection of government property and national symbols, which are distinct from pure speech.

The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-12)

As a direct legislative response to the Alvarez decision, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was signed into law by President Barack Obama on June 3, 2013. This Act re-criminalized false claims of military decorations, but with a critical amendment to address the Supreme Court’s concerns: it now requires that such claims be made “with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit”. This amendment ensured the law’s constitutionality. Importantly, the 2013 Act “further protected the Medal of Honor against fraud and reaffirmed the earlier legislation making it illegal to sell or purchase the cherished medal”. This explicitly confirms that the core prohibition on  

trafficking the Medal of Honor was never overturned by Alvarez and remains firmly in place. It specifically amended 18 U.S.C. § 704(b) to incorporate the “tangible benefit” requirement.  

Prompting Factors for Specific Protections

The continuous legislative efforts reflect a profound societal understanding that the Medal of Honor is not merely a collectible. Its commercial sale would fundamentally diminish its unique status and the immense sacrifices it represents, thereby safeguarding its sacred meaning. High-profile cases, such as the H.L.I. Lordship Industries prosecution , clearly demonstrated the urgent need for robust legal frameworks to combat the illicit manufacturing and sale of medals, as well as the broader exploitation of military honors for personal gain. These incidents served as catalysts for strengthening the law. Congress explicitly articulated its intent to protect the “reputation and meaning of military decorations and medals,” recognizing that fraudulent claims and illicit trade undermine the dignity of those who have genuinely earned these honors.  

The legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 704, particularly through the Stolen Valor Acts and the Alvarez decision, demonstrates a complex interplay between legal principles (like free speech) and deeply held societal values (like honoring military sacrifice). The Alvarez ruling, while appearing to limit the law, actually forced a refinement. It clarified that while the government cannot criminalize mere false speech about receiving a medal, it can criminalize false claims made with fraudulent intent for tangible gain. Crucially, the Alvarez decision did not invalidate the direct prohibitions on the manufacture, sale, or trade of medals. This indicates that the act of commodifying the physical Medal of Honor is viewed as a distinct and inherently harmful act, separate from speech. This legal evolution reveals a clear societal line: while one might be able to say they received a medal (without intent to gain), one cannot traffic the physical symbol. The law’s enduring prohibition on the sale of the Medal of Honor underscores its status as a unique national asset, whose integrity must be protected from commercial desecration, regardless of accompanying fraudulent claims. The legislative history demonstrates a continuous and adaptive effort to protect military honors from various forms of disrespect. It highlights that the Medal of Honor’s unique legal protection is rooted in a profound national commitment to preserving its symbolic integrity, distinguishing between protected speech and prohibited commercial conduct.

Table 2: Legislative Milestones: Evolution of Medal of Honor Protections

The various subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 704, with their differing scopes, mental state requirements, and penalties, can be intricate for a non-legal expert to grasp. This table provides a clear, concise, and visually organized comparison. By presenting the data side-by-side, the table effectively emphasizes the Medal of Honor’s singular legal protection, which includes a higher maximum imprisonment term for trafficking compared to general medals. It also clarifies that other high-level medals receive similar enhanced penalties. For collectors, military personnel, and the general public, this table distills complex legal text into an easily digestible format, serving as a quick reference for the core prohibitions and their consequences. The table explicitly differentiates between the “knowingly” standard for trafficking and the “intent to obtain tangible benefit” for fraudulent claims, a crucial legal nuance that is often misunderstood and directly addresses the impact of the Alvarez decision.

More Than Just Metal: The Rationale Behind the Ban

The prohibition on buying or selling the Medal of Honor stems from a profound understanding of its symbolic significance, extending far beyond its material composition. This legal stance is rooted in deeply held national values.

Preserving Sanctity and Prestige

The Medal of Honor is not merely an award; it is the nation’s highest recognition for valor, representing acts of extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice. Its commercialization would inevitably diminish its unique and sacred status, reducing it to a mere commodity. The law safeguards the Medal’s inherent dignity and the profound sacrifices it embodies, ensuring it remains an untouchable symbol of national heroism. As noted in legislative discussions, the law aims to protect the “reputation and meaning” of such decorations.  

Preventing Commodification

Treating the Medal of Honor as a commercial commodity (like any other antique or collectible) is seen as deeply disrespectful to the recipients, their families, and the core values of duty, honor, and country that the Medal represents. The law reinforces that its true value is immeasurable, rooted in moral and symbolic significance rather than monetary worth. The FBI, for instance, has stated, “We are not talking about trading comic books or baseball cards,” emphasizing that “People are making profits off someone else’s sacrifice”.  

Protecting Recipients and Families

The prohibition serves as a crucial safeguard, preventing Medal of Honor recipients or their families from being pressured, coerced, or exploited into selling the Medal. This protection is particularly vital after a recipient’s death, when the Medal transitions into a cherished family heirloom. The law ensures that the Medal remains a perpetual testament to valor, rather than a potential financial asset that could become subject to external pressures, internal disputes, or illicit market forces.

National Symbol

The Medal of Honor is widely regarded as a national symbol, embodying the highest ideals of courage, selflessness, and sacrifice that define military service and, by extension, the character and resilience of the United States. Protecting its integrity is therefore seen as an act of safeguarding a vital piece of national heritage and the collective memory of heroism.  

The law’s explicit intent is to prevent the commodification of the Medal of Honor, thereby preserving its symbolic value and preventing it from being treated as a market good. However, by making the Medal illegal to sell, the law effectively removes it from the legitimate market, creating an artificial scarcity. In a black market, scarcity combined with high demand (driven by prestige and illicit desire for forbidden items) can ironically drive up the perceived “value” of the item among illicit collectors. The FBI’s purchase of fake Medals of Honor for hundreds of dollars and a reported eBay sale for $2,200 illustrate this illicit interest. This creates a tension where the legal prohibition, intended to strip the Medal of monetary value, might paradoxically enhance its shadowy perceived worth among those operating outside the law. This highlights the enduring challenge of controlling demand for highly symbolic and rare items, even when their commercial trade is legally prohibited. The law’s success lies in its moral and symbolic impact, even if a black market persists due to the very nature of its prohibition.  

Enforcement of the Prohibition: Challenges and Cases

The federal government takes the illicit trade of the Medal of Honor very seriously, with various agencies actively involved in enforcement, though challenges persist.

Role of Federal Agencies

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a primary agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting Medal of Honor fraud and trafficking. Their involvement underscores the federal nature and severity of these crimes. Other federal agencies, particularly those involved in customs and border protection, may also play a role in cases involving interstate or international shipping of illicit medals, as 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) explicitly covers “imports, exports, mails, ships”.  

Notable Case: The H.L.I. Lordship Industries Prosecution

In the early 1990s, FBI Special Agent Tom Cottone initiated an investigation after discovering a vendor illegally selling manufactured Medals of Honor at a trade show. This probe ultimately led to H.L.I. Lordship Industries of Long Island, New York, which was the official government manufacturer of the Medal of Honor but was also illegally producing and distributing unauthorized versions of the award. FBI agents, posing as collectors, successfully purchased fake Medals of Honor (an Army version for $510 and an Air Force version for $485), which directly led them to Lordship Industries as the source.  

In December 1996, Lordship Industries pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count. Federal district court Judge William Bassler imposed the maximum penalty: an $80,000 fine, $22,500 in restitution to the government (representing the cost of the fake medals), and five years of probation. Crucially, the Pentagon subsequently barred Lordship Industries from receiving any government contracts for 15 years, resulting in an estimated loss of $155 million in earnings. Furthermore, two of the company’s three owners were forced to sell their stock and sever ties with the business. This case was monumental. It demonstrated that even official contractors are not above the law and that the government is prepared to impose severe penalties on both sellers and manufacturers of illicit medals, including convincing replicas. It highlighted the seriousness with which the government views any attempt to profit from or desecrate military honors.  

Challenges in Enforcement

The proliferation of online marketplaces presents a significant challenge. The internet offers a vast, often anonymous, platform for illicit transactions, making detection and prosecution more complex than traditional physical trade shows. While not specific to the Medal of Honor, the mention of eBay listings for other WWII medals indicates the general difficulty of online enforcement. Additionally, while U.S. law covers “imports” and “exports” , prosecuting individuals or entities based internationally can be complex due to jurisdictional limitations, differing national laws, and the intricacies of international legal cooperation. The existence of Medals of Honor whose whereabouts are unknown poses a unique challenge. If such a Medal resurfaces on the black market, its tracing and recovery can be complicated by its prior “lost” status and the illicit nature of its trade.  

Seizure of Illegally Trafficked Medals

The FBI regularly seizes fraudulent and illegally trafficked Medals of Honor, which are sometimes displayed as artifacts in their historical collections, serving as tangible evidence of enforcement efforts.  

The H.L.I. Lordship Industries case in the early 1990s directly preceded and influenced the strengthening of 18 U.S.C. § 704 in 1994 and the subsequent Stolen Valor Act of 2005. This demonstrates a reactive but necessary legal evolution, where significant enforcement actions often expose loopholes or inadequacies in existing law, prompting legislative updates. The historical context of the Lordship case (physical trade shows) contrasts with the modern challenge of online sales. This implies an ongoing “cat-and-mouse” game where illicit actors adapt their methods (e.g., moving to online platforms), requiring law enforcement to continuously adapt their investigative techniques and digital forensics capabilities. The narrative of enforcement reveals that the fight against Medal of Honor trafficking is not static. It’s a continuous, adaptive process driven by both legal precedent and the changing tactics of those who seek to exploit military honors, highlighting the need for vigilance and evolving strategies.

How Does the Medal of Honor Differ? Comparing with Other Decorations

The legal framework surrounding U.S. military decorations reveals a clear hierarchy of protection, with the Medal of Honor consistently receiving the most stringent prohibitions.

Other U.S. Military Medals

Subsection (a) broadly prohibits the purchase, sale, manufacture, and other commercial activities involving any decoration or medal authorized by Congress, including “any colorable imitation thereof”. The standard maximum penalty for these general offenses is imprisonment for up to six months. However, the law specifically singles out other highly distinguished medals for enhanced penalties, mirroring those applied to the Medal of Honor (up to one year imprisonment or fine or both), when involved in an offense under subsection (a). These include the Distinguished-Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, and certain combat badges. The inclusion of “Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Combat Action Badge, Combat Medical Badge, Combat Action Ribbon, or Combat Action Medal” underscores a legislative intent to protect awards directly tied to combat heroism.  

While the Purple Heart is included under 18 U.S.C. § 704(d) for enhanced trafficking penalties, its legal status regarding private sale has seen some debate. Some sources suggest it is “not currently illegal to sell a purple heart medal” but note “legislation being looked at in order to prohibit their sale”. Furthermore, platforms like eBay explicitly prohibit the sale of Purple Heart medals. This indicates a nuanced legal and ethical landscape for the Purple Heart, with ongoing discussions and platform-specific restrictions, but it lacks the explicit, blanket federal ban on all commercial transactions that applies to the Medal of Honor. The Purple Heart also has unique legislative attention regarding benefits transfer and award criteria , separate from its trafficking prohibitions. The Medal of Honor is consistently singled out for the most absolute and stringent prohibitions on sale/purchase due to its unparalleled status as the nation’s highest award for valor. It represents the pinnacle of military heroism and sacrifice, making its commodification particularly egregious and offensive to national sentiment. The law reflects a clear national consensus that this specific medal transcends typical collectible status and must be protected from any form of commercial desecration.  

Foreign Military Medals and Historical U.S. Medals

18 U.S.C. § 704 explicitly refers to “decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States”. It does not directly criminalize the trafficking of foreign military medals by private citizens. However, the receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations by U.S. federal employees, including military personnel, are regulated by 5 U.S. Code § 7342. Gifts of “more than minimal value” (currently $100 or less) are deemed property of the U.S. government unless approved by Congress.

Such gifts cannot be sold without the approval of the Secretary of State, who must determine that the sale will not adversely affect U.S. foreign relations. This means that while trafficking foreign medals isn’t covered by 18 U.S.C. § 704, their initial acquisition by U.S. personnel is regulated, and their subsequent sale by the government is restricted.

The law, particularly the Stolen Valor Acts, explicitly states that the prohibition on buying or selling the Medal of Honor applies to “historical versions and designs of the Medal”. This means there are no “grandfathering” exceptions for older Medals of Honor; the prohibition on sale applies regardless of the era in which they were awarded. For other historical U.S. military medals, the general prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) would apply.  

The legal framework of 18 U.S.C. § 704 establishes a clear tiered penalty structure: a baseline for general medals (up to 6 months), and enhanced penalties for the Medal of Honor and other high-level combat awards (up to 1 year). This tiered approach is not arbitrary. It reflects a deliberate legislative intent to create a legal hierarchy of valor, where awards directly associated with extraordinary combat heroism and sacrifice receive greater legal protection. The separate legal treatment of foreign medals (under 5 U.S.C. § 7342, focused on gifts and foreign relations) further underscores this point. U.S. law applies a distinct and more stringent framework to its own military honors, particularly the Medal of Honor, treating them as uniquely sacred national symbols rather than mere diplomatic gifts or collectibles. The legal distinctions within 18 U.S.C. § 704 and its contrast with regulations for foreign awards demonstrate that U.S. law explicitly codifies a national reverence for specific military decorations. The Medal of Honor stands at the apex of this hierarchy, receiving the most absolute prohibition on commercial transactions, reflecting its singular and non-negotiable status in the commercial sphere. The law is a reflection of deeply ingrained national values, where the sanctity and symbolic power of the Medal of Honor are deemed paramount, justifying a unique and absolute prohibition on its commodification.

Legitimate Stewardship: What to Do with an Inherited or Found Medal of Honor

While the commercial sale of the Medal of Honor is strictly prohibited, the law does not impede legitimate possession or the respectful transfer of the Medal through non-commercial means.

Legal Possession

18 U.S.C. § 704 targets commercial transactions (purchase, sale, barter, trade, etc.), not the mere possession of a Medal of Honor by its legitimate recipient or their family members. Inheriting a Medal of Honor does not make one a criminal; attempting to sell it does.

Gifting and Donation

Gifting a Medal of Honor within a family (e.g., from a recipient to a child or grandchild) or donating it to an appropriate public institution is not prohibited by federal law. The statute’s focus is on “exchanges for anything of value,” meaning non-commercial transfers are permissible.

Appropriate Channels for Stewardship

For families who inherit a Medal of Honor and do not wish to keep it, or for individuals who find one, several appropriate and respectful channels exist to ensure its proper preservation and public recognition:

• Congressional Medal of Honor Society: This esteemed organization is explicitly mentioned as a suitable venue for preservation and can provide expert guidance on the appropriate handling and disposition of Medals of Honor.  
• National Medal of Honor Museum: Located in Arlington, Texas, this museum is specifically dedicated to preserving the stories and artifacts related to the Medal of Honor. They actively accept donations of Medals of Honor and related materials.  
• National Museum of the United States Army/Military Archives: Institutions like the National Museum of the United States Army collect and preserve historical military artifacts, including medals. They have established formal donation processes, typically requiring an artifact donation form, high-resolution images, and detailed provenance information. It is crucial to contact such institutions before sending or attempting to drop off items.  
• Other Appropriate Venues: Depending on the Medal’s specific historical context or the recipient’s ties, local historical societies, city halls, or other military museums may also be suitable venues for display and preservation.  

Guidance on Donation Process

When donating, it is important to follow the specific procedures of the chosen institution. Museums typically do not appraise artifacts for donors, so independent appraisal should be sought if desired for tax purposes. The goal of these institutions is to preserve the Medal’s history and make it accessible for public education and inspiration.  

The law explicitly prohibits the commercial sale of the Medal of Honor while simultaneously allowing for legitimate possession, gifting, and, crucially, donation to public institutions. This framework effectively shifts the Medal of Honor from a private heirloom with potential market value to a collective national treasure. By encouraging donation to museums and historical archives, the law and societal norms implicitly convey an expectation that the Medal’s legacy should be shared and preserved for public benefit and education, rather than being privately held or monetized. The emphasis on appropriate donation channels underscores the belief that the Medal’s true “value” lies in its ability to inspire future generations and honor past sacrifices—a value best realized through public stewardship and collective memory. The law, while acting as a deterrent against illicit trade, also implicitly encourages a moral and civic duty of responsible stewardship, transforming private ownership of the Medal of Honor into a form of public trust.

Beyond the Law: Unique Angles and Considerations

The Medal of Honor’s unique status creates several complex dynamics that extend beyond the explicit legal prohibitions.

The “Market Value” Paradox

Despite the strict illegality, an undeniable, albeit illicit, interest in acquiring Medals of Honor persists on the black market. Historical instances, such as the FBI purchasing fake Medals of Honor for hundreds of dollars in the 1990s and a reported eBay sale of one for $2,200 in 2013 , illustrate this shadowy demand. Paradoxically, the very illegality and severe penalties associated with trafficking the Medal of Honor may contribute to its perceived “high value” among illicit collectors. By removing it from legitimate commerce, the law creates an artificial scarcity and a “forbidden fruit” allure, enhancing its desirability as a rare and illicit item. This tension exists between the law’s intent to de-commodify the Medal and the unintended consequence of heightened black market interest. It is crucial to reiterate that despite any illicit market interest, the Medal’s true value remains priceless, intrinsically tied to the courage, valor, and sacrifice it represents, not to any monetary worth.  

Role of Collector Communities

Ethical medal collector communities generally hold the law regarding the Medal of Honor in high regard and actively condemn illicit sales. These serious collectors are typically driven by a passion for history, provenance, and the stories behind the medals, rather than mere financial gain. These communities can serve as a vital informal network for self-policing and aiding law enforcement by reporting suspicious listings or individuals attempting to sell Medals of Honor. The FBI’s Lordship Industries investigation, for example, was initiated by a tip, demonstrating the importance of public vigilance, including from informed collectors. Historically, some collector groups, such as the Orders and Medals Society of America (OMSA), initially expressed concerns that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 might inadvertently impact legitimate collectors, veterans seeking replacement medals, or family members wishing to pass down heirlooms. However, the law’s specific focus on “exchanges for anything of value” and unauthorized manufacture/sale, rather than legitimate possession or gifting, has largely clarified these concerns for ethical collectors.  

First Amendment Considerations (and why they don’t apply to sale)

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez is often misunderstood in this context.  

Alvarez struck down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005’s provision criminalizing false claims of receiving a medal without an intent to obtain tangible benefit, on free speech grounds. The Court emphasized that pure speech, even if false, is broadly protected under the First Amendment unless it falls into specific, traditionally unprotected categories (e.g., fraud, defamation, incitement).

However, the sale or purchase of a physical Medal of Honor is fundamentally a commercial transaction, not pure speech. Commercial speech, while receiving some First Amendment protection, is subject to greater regulation than political or informational speech. The government possesses a substantial interest in regulating commercial transactions, particularly those involving items considered national symbols or government property. This regulation aims to prevent fraud, protect public order, and uphold the integrity of national honors. The prohibition on selling the Medal of Honor is a regulation of  

conduct (a commercial exchange), not speech. It is about preventing the commodification of a sacred object, which is distinct from prohibiting someone from falsely claiming to have received it (unless for tangible gain). The government’s interest in protecting the Medal’s sanctity outweighs any claim of free speech in its commercial exchange.

The “Lost” Medals

While precise statistics on “lost” Medals of Honor are not readily available, the concept of “lost documents or eyewitness accounts” in relation to awards suggests that some Medals may be unaccounted for. Websites like mohhsus.com track recipients whose final resting places or post-service lives are unknown, implying that some Medals may have been lost to history or their whereabouts remain a mystery. The illegality of sale complicates the recovery of lost Medals. If a genuine Medal of Honor resurfaces, the inability to legally sell it might incentivize finding illicit buyers rather than reporting its discovery to authorities or appropriate historical institutions. This creates a disincentive for legitimate discovery and return. For legitimate recipients or their families, replacement medals can be obtained through the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).  

Impact on Museums and Historical Archives

The federal prohibition on the sale of the Medal of Honor directly impacts how museums and historical archives can acquire these precious artifacts. They are legally barred from purchasing Medals of Honor. Their acquisition must therefore occur through donation, ensuring that the Medal’s presence in public collections is based on philanthropic intent to preserve history and honor, rather than commercial transaction. This policy reinforces the fundamental principle that the Medal is a national treasure to be preserved for public education and inspiration, rather than a commodity to be traded. Museums play a crucial role in upholding this trust by serving as stewards of these invaluable symbols.  

International Law & Treaties

A review of international instruments reveals that major treaties primarily address human trafficking, slavery, and migrant worker rights. There is no indication of broad international agreements or norms specifically governing the trafficking of national highest honors or military decorations. Matters concerning national military honors are typically governed by the domestic laws of each sovereign nation, as each country defines and protects its own symbols of valor and achievement. While international cooperation might occur in specific cases of cross-border trafficking (e.g., through Interpol or bilateral agreements), there isn’t a comprehensive multilateral treaty framework for this specific issue.  

The recurring emphasis on words like “sanctity,” “prestige,” “sacrifice,” and “honor” throughout the legislative history and public discourse is not accidental. This consistent language points to a deep-seated moral imperative that serves as the fundamental bedrock for the legal prohibitions against the Medal’s commercialization. The law isn’t just about controlling property; it’s about codifying a collective ethical stance. This moral conviction is so strong that it overrides typical commercial freedoms and even pushes the boundaries of certain interpretations of free speech (as seen in the Alvarez case’s precise re-framing). The actions of legitimate collector communities (self-policing, aiding law enforcement), the FBI’s proactive investigations, and the strong societal encouragement for museum donations all stem from this shared moral understanding. The law, in essence, is a formal expression of this collective ethical stance. The illegality of selling the Medal of Honor is far more than a legal technicality; it is a powerful and enduring expression of national values and a collective commitment to protecting the integrity of its most sacred symbols of valor. This pervasive moral imperative drives both the legal framework and broader societal actions, ensuring the Medal’s status as a sacred trust.

Conclusion: Upholding the Sacred Trust

The Medal of Honor stands as an unparalleled symbol of American valor, a testament to extraordinary courage and selfless sacrifice. Its unique status is not merely ceremonial; it is enshrined in federal law, unequivocally prohibiting its commercial trade.

Under 18 U.S. Code § 704, the buying, selling, manufacturing, or any other commercial trafficking of the Medal of Honor is a federal crime, carrying significant penalties including substantial fines and up to one year of imprisonment. This stringent prohibition, reinforced by the Stolen Valor Acts of 2005 and 2013, reflects a profound national consensus that the Medal’s value is immeasurable, transcending any monetary worth.

The rationale behind this ban is multifaceted: it preserves the Medal’s inherent sanctity and prestige, preventing its reduction to a mere commodity; it protects recipients and their families from exploitation; and it safeguards the Medal as a cherished national symbol embodying the highest ideals of courage and sacrifice. While the law is clear, challenges persist, particularly in the digital age and the shadowy black market, underscoring the ongoing need for vigilance and enforcement.

For those who legitimately come into possession of a Medal of Honor, the law encourages responsible stewardship. Rather than attempting to engage in illicit trade, the appropriate channels involve respectful gifting within families or, ideally, donation to esteemed institutions such as the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, the National Medal of Honor Museum, or other military archives. These institutions ensure the Medal’s preservation and its continued role in inspiring future generations.

The stringent laws protecting the Medal of Honor reflect a deep societal understanding of [the importance of upholding the integrity of awards]. This principle extends to all forms of recognition, where authenticity and respect are paramount, and organizations often turn to [trusted sources for commemorative items] to ensure their awards carry genuine meaning. While no other award carries the unique legal protections of the Medal of Honor, the act of [designing custom medals that reflect true achievement] allows any institution to bestow honors that are valued, respected, and serve as authentic symbols of accomplishment.

Ultimately, the illegality of selling the Medal of Honor is more than a legal dictate; it is a powerful affirmation of a collective moral imperative. It is a shared responsibility to uphold this sacred trust, ensuring that the Medal of Honor remains a perpetual, untarnished beacon of American heroism for all time.