The National Guard & DC

What is going on with two guards shot?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of Wednesday afternoon, November 26, 2025, two National Guard members who were shot near the White House in Washington, D.C. are in critical condition. A suspect has been taken into custody and is also injured.

Key Details

Victim Status: The two guardsmen from West Virginia were shot and are in critical condition, according to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and FBI Director Kash Patel. Initial reports from the West Virginia governor that they had died were later walked back as conflicting.

Incident Details: The shooting occurred around 2:15 p.m. at 17th Street and I Street NW, near the Farragut West Metro station, just a couple of blocks from the White House. Law enforcement sources described it as a “targeted” attack where the suspect appeared to target the guardsmen. The guardsmen exchanged gunfire with the suspect.

Suspect Status: One suspect is in custody. This individual was also shot and transported to a hospital with injuries that are not considered life-threatening. The suspect is not cooperating with investigators and had no identification at the time of arrest.

Investigation: The FBI is leading the investigation, treating the case as an assault on a federal law enforcement officer. A rifle was recovered at the scene.

Response: The White House was placed on lockdown, but has since reopened to those with security passes. President Donald Trump, who is in Florida, has been briefed and called the suspect an “animal” who will “pay a very steep price”. The Trump administration has ordered an additional 500 National Guard troops to be deployed to D.C. following the incident.”

Does a government engage in shootings or other reckless behavior to distract voters from other issues? [It’s unknown why the AI gave the below response to the above question].

GoogleAI Mode: “A potential Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs could mean billions of dollars in refunds for importers. The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, and a decision is expected in late 2025 or early 2026. A lower court, the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have already ruled the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for tariffs illegal, and the Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism during the hearing.

Key details about the potential ruling and refunds:

Tariffs in question: The case specifically concerns the “reciprocal tariffs” levied under the IEEPA, which target broad categories of imports from many countries. It does not affect tariffs imposed under different authorities, like Section 301 on China or Section 232 on steel and aluminum.

Refund process: If the ruling requires refunds, it would likely not be an automatic process. Importers would need to file protests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to claim the money. Customs and trade experts have described the potential repayment process as a logistical “nightmare” due to the volume of payments and administrative complexities.

Amount of refunds: Estimates suggest the government may have to refund upwards of $90 billion in collected duties.

Refund recipients: While importers are the direct recipients of any refunds, consumers are unlikely to see the money directly. There has also been a market for investors to buy the rights to potential refunds from companies at a discount.

Political implications: A ruling against the tariffs could be a significant blow to Trump’s economic agenda. If the court sides with Trump, it could set a precedent for broader use of presidential emergency powers.

Latest updates (as of November 2025):

Legislative action: Some members of Congress have introduced legislation, the Small Business RELIEF Act, aimed at exempting small businesses from the tariffs and ensuring they receive refunds.

Alternate authorities: Even if the IEEPA tariffs are overturned, Trump could potentially impose similar tariffs using other legal authorities, though with some procedural hurdles.

Other tariff actions: The administration has continued to expand tariff exemptions and create new trade frameworks with certain countries, while other existing tariffs remain in effect.”

What’s the latest on the investigation into the shooting?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of Wednesday afternoon, November 26, 2025, the investigation into the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., is ongoing, with the FBI leading the probe into what officials are calling a “targeted” attack.

Investigation Status

Lead Agency: The FBI has taken the lead on the investigation, and the case is being treated as an assault on a federal law enforcement officer.

Motive Unknown: The motive for the shooting is not yet clear, and investigators are working to determine why the guardsmen were targeted.

Suspect Details:

The suspect is in custody and was also injured in an exchange of gunfire.

D.C. police believe they know the suspect’s identity but are still working to confirm it. No name has been publicly released.

The suspect is reportedly not cooperating with investigators.

The suspect is a lone gunman; there are no other suspects being sought at this time.

Evidence Collected: A rifle was recovered from the scene near the Farragut West Metro station entrance where the shooting occurred.

Next Steps: U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney Piro have been briefed and assured officials that their offices will give the case complete attention. The investigation is in its preliminary stages, with law enforcement running down every lead and piece of evidence.

Current Conditions

Guardsmen: Both West Virginia National Guard members are in critical condition. Initial reports from the West Virginia Governor that they had died were later clarified as conflicting.

Suspect: The suspect was transported to a hospital with injuries that are not considered life-threatening.”

How many rifles have been found at the scene of a crime?

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2023, there were 511 murder victims killed with rifles in the U.S., according to the FBI’s data. This figure represents about 4% of all firearm-related murders where the weapon type was specified.

Comprehensive data on the total number of rifles simply “found at the scene of a crime” (which would include non-homicide crimes, recovered stolen property, etc.) is less consistently tracked at a national level, as law enforcement reporting is voluntary. The available data focuses primarily on homicides or guns submitted to the ATF for tracing.

Key Statistics on Rifles in Crime

Homicides: The number of homicides committed with rifles is consistently low relative to other weapons. In 2021, 447 people were killed with rifles, compared to 5,992 with handguns. Handguns account for the vast majority of firearm-related homicides.

Crime Scene Recoveries (General Crime): Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracing requests indicates that handguns make up roughly three-quarters of all crime guns recovered, while rifles account for around 10 percent.

State-Level Data: In Massachusetts in 2024, 252 of the 2,389 crime guns seized were rifles (10% of total). In California, a 2024 report on firearms used in homicides found that five rifles were part of the 75 qualifying firearms examined in homicide cases in that specific report’s scope (7% of that sample).

FBI and ATF data on these statistics can be explored further on the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer and the ATF’s website.”

What led to the shooting, according to preliminary reports?

GoogleAI Mode: “According to preliminary reports from law enforcement officials, the shooting near the White House was an unprovoked and “targeted” ambush attack on National Guard members who were on high-visibility patrol. The specific motive, however, remains unknown at this time.

Key details regarding the lead-up to the shooting:

Ambush Style: The suspect has been described as a lone gunman who “came around the corner” at 17th Street and I Street NW, raised a firearm, and opened fire on the two guardsmen without any known prior interaction.

Victims’ Activity: The National Guard members were conducting routine, high-visibility patrols in a busy, heavily populated area near a Metro station entrance when they were attacked.

Exchange of Gunfire: At least one of the guardsmen and other nearby law enforcement or Guard members returned fire, wounding the suspect and enabling them to take him into custody.

Motive: The motive is currently the subject of the ongoing investigation, and D.C. police officials have stated it is too early to determine the reason for the attack. The suspect has not been cooperative with investigators.

The FBI is leading the investigation into the incident, treating it as an assault on a federal law enforcement officer.”

What’s known about the suspect? Has there been an update on the guardsmen’s condition?

GoogleAI Mode: “One suspect has been taken into custody following the shooting of two National Guardsmen near the White House on November 26, 2025.

Suspect Information

Status: The suspect is in custody and was also injured in the altercation. The suspect’s injuries are reportedly not life-threatening, and they are receiving treatment at an area hospital.

Identity: Officials have not publicly identified the suspect as of the latest reports, partly because the individual is uncooperative and had no identification at the time of arrest.

Motive: A motive for the shooting is still under investigation. Authorities, including the FBI, are exploring potential angles, including domestic terrorism.

Incident Details: Police believe it was the work of a “lone gunman” who appeared to target the guardsmen in an “ambush-style” attack. Other guardsmen and law enforcement quickly subdued and detained the suspect at the scene.

Guardsmen’s Condition

The two National Guard members, from the West Virginia National Guard, are in critical condition. They were transported to a local hospital immediately after the shooting.

Initial reports from the West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey stated the guardsmen had died, but he later retracted this, confirming the information was conflicting and that both members were still fighting for their lives in critical condition.

The FBI director requested prayers for the guardsmen and their families, emphasizing the seriousness of their injuries.”

Where exactly did the shooting take place and what patrols were the guardsmen on?

GoogleAI Mode: “The shooting of two National Guardsmen occurred at the intersection of 17th and I streets NW in Washington, D.C., near the entrance to the Farragut West Metro station. This location is approximately two blocks northwest of the White House.

The guardsmen were on “high visibility patrols” as part of a mission to combat violent crime in the city. They were specifically assigned to patrol public areas, including train stations, a role they had been fulfilling daily for months.

The attack was described by police and local officials as an “ambush-style” or “targeted” shooting, where a lone gunman appeared from around a corner and opened fire on the guardsmen. One of the guardsmen was shot in the head, and at least one returned fire.”

Were other people in danger during the shooting?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, numerous other people were in danger during the shooting. The incident occurred in a busy downtown area of Washington, D.C., and many bystanders were present at the time.

Danger to the Public

Presence of Bystanders: The location at the intersection of 17th and I streets NW is a busy corridor near the Farragut West Metro station, frequented by commuters, office workers, and tourists. Witnesses reported seeing “a bunch of people start running as soon as those shots came”.

Active Gunfire: The event involved an exchange of gunfire between the suspect and the guardsmen. The nature of the shooting in a public space put anyone nearby at immediate risk from stray bullets or being caught in the crossfire.

Chaos and Panic: The sudden eruption of gunfire caused chaos, with an AFP reporter hearing “several loud pops and saw people running”.

Official Warnings: Following the shooting, the Metropolitan Police Department advised the public to avoid the area, and the White House was briefly placed on lockdown, indicating an immediate security threat to the general vicinity.

No Other Physical Injuries Reported: While many people were in danger and caught in the chaos, current reports indicate that only the two National Guardsmen and the suspect sustained gunshot wounds. All three victims were transported to area hospitals.”

How does the National Guard mission work in DC?

GoogleAI Mode: “The current National Guard mission in Washington, D.C., operates under a unique structure that blends federal authority with support for local law enforcement in what the Trump administration has termed the “Safe and Beautiful” initiative.

Activation and Authority

Unlike National Guard units in states, which report to their respective governors, the D.C. National Guard reports to the President of the United States. The current deployment was initiated by President Donald Trump in August 2025 through an executive order that declared a crime emergency in the District.

In addition to the D.C. Guard, National Guard members from several Republican-led states were also deployed at the request of the Trump administration to assist in the mission. The legal basis for this specific type of deployment, which involves using military members for domestic law enforcement-related functions, is being challenged in federal court, with a judge recently ruling the deployment unlawful, though that order is currently paused pending appeal.

Role and Function

The mission involves over 2,000 National Guard troops who are on duty to support local and federal law enforcement efforts. Their specific roles include:

High Visibility Patrols: Guardsmen are a visible presence in public areas such as the National Mall, federal buildings, the waterfront, and Metro stations to deter crime and ensure public safety.

Support Functions: They assist law enforcement by performing security, crowd management, and perimeter control.

Deterrence: Their physical presence is intended to act as a deterrent to criminal activity.

“Beautification” Efforts: The mission also includes some non-security tasks, such as cleaning up national park properties.

No Arrest Powers: While they can temporarily detain individuals who pose a threat or interfere with their duties, the guardsmen do not have the power to make arrests for general crimes, as that remains a civilian law enforcement activity. Detained individuals are transferred to civilian law enforcement custody.

The mission is part of a broader federal effort involving multiple agencies, including the FBI and DEA, working under the direction of the Attorney General to address the perceived crime issues in the capital.”

Considering the law alone including the Constitution, on a scale of 1 out 5, how unlawful is the presence of National Guards in DC?

GoogleAI Mode: “Based purely on the law and the Constitution, the presence of the National Guard in D.C. for its current mission would be rated as 5/5 (Highly Unlawful) by a U.S. District Court judge.

Here is a breakdown of the legal arguments:

Judicial Ruling: A federal judge, Jia M. Cobb, recently ruled that the deployment is “likely unlawful” and that the Trump administration “exceeded the bounds of their authority”. The judge ordered the administration to end the deployment, finding that it illegally infringes on the District’s self-governance and Congress’s authority over the capital.

Constitutional Arguments:

Congress’s Authority over D.C.: The Constitution places D.C. exclusively under Congress’s authority. The judge found that the deployment of out-of-state National Guard forces, in particular, violated this constitutional design by forcing D.C. to share power with state governors commanding those units.

Posse Comitatus Act: This 1878 law generally forbids the federal military from acting as domestic police. While there are exceptions (like the Insurrection Act), the judge ruled that the current deployment does not meet the criteria for these exceptions and that using the Guard for routine crime deterrence is an improper use of military power on U.S. soil.

Tenth Amendment: Legal experts argue the deployment of one state’s National Guard to another state without the receiving governor’s consent violates state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment.

The White House maintains that the President has the authority to deploy the National Guard in D.C. to protect federal assets. However, based on the current legal challenges and the federal court’s findings, the mission is considered to be in strong violation of existing laws and constitutional principles by many legal experts and local D.C. officials. The ruling is currently on hold pending an appeal.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What is the update on the two National Guard members?

GoogleAI Mode: “The two National Guard members who were shot in a targeted attack near the White House in Washington, D.C., today (November 26, 2025) are currently in critical condition.

Initial conflicting reports from officials, including the Governor of West Virginia, had mistakenly announced their deaths, but authorities later confirmed they are still alive but critically injured. Both guardsmen, who are members of the West Virginia National Guard deployed to D.C., were shot in the head, according to law enforcement sources.

The suspect has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who entered the U.S. in 2021 through the Operation Allies Welcome program. He was also shot and is in custody at a hospital. The FBI is investigating the incident as a possible act of terrorism.

President Trump has called the shooting an “act of terror” and ordered an additional 500 National Guard troops to the city.”

What has been found in the investigation into the motive?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of Wednesday night, no clear motive has been identified in the shooting of the two National Guard members. The FBI, which is leading the investigation, is currently treating the incident as a possible act of terrorism and an assault on a federal law enforcement officer.

Key findings from the investigation so far:

Targeted Attack: D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and police officials have stated that the individual appeared to have “targeted” and “ambushed” the uniformed Guard members. The suspect came around a corner and immediately opened fire.

Suspect Details: The suspect has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national. He entered the U.S. in 2021 through the Operation Allies Welcome program. There are conflicting reports on his current legal status, with some sources suggesting he may have overstayed his visa, while others indicate he was granted asylum in April 2025.

Suspect in Custody: Lakanwal was also shot during the exchange of gunfire and is currently in custody at a hospital.

Lack of Cooperation: Initial reports from law enforcement sources suggest the suspect has not been cooperating with authorities.

Ongoing Investigation: The FBI is actively going through the suspect’s digital footprint and social media accounts, trying to interview relatives, and piecing together his life and movements leading up to the attack.

Lone Gunman: Officials have indicated they believe the suspect acted alone, and there are no other known suspects at this time.

Vice President JD Vance cautioned that much remains unknown and a lot hasn’t been figured out yet regarding the motive.”

What is the condition of the National Guard members now?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of late Wednesday evening (November 26, 2025), the two National Guard members who were shot near the White House remain in critical condition at local hospitals.

Both guardsmen were reportedly shot in the head during what authorities described as a “targeted” ambush-style attack.

Earlier in the day, the Governor of West Virginia had mistakenly announced their deaths based on conflicting reports, but officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, later confirmed they were still critically injured and receiving treatment.

The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was also shot during the incident and is in custody at a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.”

How many National Guard troops are in D.C.?

GoogleAI Mode: “There are an expected more than 2,500 National Guard troops assigned to the joint task force in Washington, D.C., following President Trump’s order to deploy an additional 500 members after the November 26, 2025 shooting.

Before the order, approximately 2,188 National Guard personnel were already deployed to the city as part of a federal anti-crime operation that began in August 2025. The troops come from several states, including West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and the District of Columbia itself.”

There are more than 2,500 troops walking among civilians in DC?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, a large number of the expected more than 2,500 National Guard troops are actively conducting high-visibility and “presence patrols” in public areas of Washington, D.C., where they walk among civilians.

Their duties include:

Community Safety Patrols: Troops patrol areas like the National Mall, Union Station, and metro stations.

Monument Security: They provide a visible security presence at monuments and federal facilities.

Traffic Control: Assisting with managing traffic at various posts.

Support for Law Enforcement: They work alongside the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement partners, often freeing up local police to focus on other areas.

Some of the troops have also been assigned to “beautification” projects, such as landscaping, trash removal, and graffiti cleanup, in support of the “Safe and Beautiful Task Force”.

While all troops are part of the joint task force, the specific number of personnel on foot patrol at any given time can vary. The shot guardsmen were on high-visibility patrol near the White House when the attack occurred.”

National Guard members are doing “beautification” projects?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, as part of their deployment, National Guard members in Washington, D.C., have been assigned to and are actively performing “beautification” projects.

These efforts fall under the “D.C. Safe and Beautiful” mission, an initiative launched by President Trump’s administration in August 2025. While other troops provide a security presence and support law enforcement, a specific contingent is dedicated to community improvement efforts, framed by officials as a structural approach to addressing the root causes of crime.

Specific “beautification” activities have included:

Collecting thousands of bags of trash and debris in public spaces, parks, and along shorelines, such as the Tidal Basin and Marvin Gaye Park.

Spreading large amounts of mulch and removing plant waste in federal parks and tourist areas.

Removing graffiti and repainting fencing.

Assisting with campus cleanup for the Youth ChalleNGe Academy.

Restoring and improving recreation centers and other community spaces.

The “Task Force Beautification” is a distinct component of the overall deployment, and the D.C. National Guard has completed over 100 community projects since the mission began. The dual nature of the deployment—combining armed security patrols with unarmed cleanup work—has drawn mixed reactions from local residents and officials.”

Is this type of beautification work common for the National Guard?

GoogleAI Mode: “While community support is a standard part of the National Guard’s role, the scale and nature of the D.C. “beautification” work are less typical than their usual non-combat duties.

Standard Non-Combat Roles

The National Guard frequently engages in community and support roles, but these are usually tied to their core competencies and training.

Innovative Readiness Training (IRT): This program involves service members volunteering their expertise for community needs. For example, engineer units might build a community center or a firing range, applying the skills they would need in a deployment while providing a free service to a local community.

Disaster Response: A primary role of the National Guard is responding to natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, wildfires). This involves clearing debris from roads, delivering supplies, and conducting search and rescue operations.

Specialized Support: Non-combat roles make up about 80% of military jobs and include administrative, medical, logistical, engineering, and culinary specialists who ensure an operation runs smoothly.

The D.C. “Beautification” Mission

The current D.C. “Safe and Beautiful” mission is unusual because:

Scale and Scope: The deployment of thousands of troops for ongoing tasks like picking up trash, spreading mulch, and general landscaping—duties typically handled by the National Park Service or municipal workers—is notable for its duration and the sheer number of personnel assigned to it.

Political Context: The mission is part of a federally-ordered anti-crime operation that has generated public debate about the appropriate use of military resources for municipal work. Critics have raised concerns that such mundane tasks are not the best use of military training and resources.

Dual Mission: The D.C. deployment is explicitly split into two components: an armed security/law enforcement support mission and an unarmed “beautification” task force, a distinction designed to manage the use of forces from various states.

In summary, while community engagement is typical, using the National Guard for extensive, daily landscaping and trash removal as a primary function of a large-scale, ongoing deployment is widely viewed as a unique and atypical assignment.”

What criticisms have D.C. officials and residents voiced about the National Guard deployment?

GoogleAI Mode: “D.C. officials and residents have voiced significant criticisms regarding the National Guard deployment, focusing primarily on the issues of local autonomy, the legality of the deployment, and the impact on community trust and safety.

Key criticisms include:

From D.C. Officials

Violation of Home Rule: Mayor Muriel Bowser and Attorney General Brian Schwalb have argued that the deployment is a “flagrant violation” of the city’s limited self-governance rights and an “unlawful” presidential overreach. A federal judge recently sided with the District, ruling the deployment illegal, though the order is paused pending appeal.

Unwarranted Justification: Officials refuted President Trump’s claim of a “crime emergency” to justify the federal intervention, pointing to statistics that showed crime was already trending downward in the city.

Inappropriate Use of Resources: Mayor Bowser has stated that using out-of-state National Guard members for local issues is “not been an efficient use of those resources”.

Erosion of Trust: Officials argue that the presence of federal military police forces, including in some cases armed and masked agents, creates a “break in trust” between law enforcement and the community.

“Authoritarian” Maneuver: Some Democratic leaders, including Mayor Bowser, have called the deployment an “authoritarian push” and a “textbook authoritarian maneuver” by the President.

From D.C. Residents

Fear and Intimidation: Some residents find the presence of armed, uniformed troops “frightening” and “unnerving” in civilian areas, seeing it as an “invasion” or an overreach of federal power.

Mixed Feelings on “Beautification”: While some residents have welcomed the help for cleanup efforts in their parks and neighborhoods, others remain deeply suspicious of the overall motives of the mission, concerned that supporting even the beautification efforts could be seen as an endorsement of the President’s actions.

Concerns about Motive: Many residents question the true intent behind the deployment, seeing it as a political play or a test of presidential power rather than a genuine effort to improve public safety.

Ineffectiveness in High-Crime Areas: Some residents living in the highest-crime neighborhoods reported not seeing any federal officers or National Guard troops in their areas, leading them to question where the resources were actually being deployed and for what purpose.”

What actions have been taken against this deployment in court?

GoogleAI Mode: “Several legal actions have been taken against the D.C. National Guard deployment, resulting in a recent federal court ruling that declared the operation unlawful.

Here are the key court actions:

Lawsuit Filed: In September 2025, the District of Columbia’s Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to block the deployment, arguing it was an overreach of presidential authority and violated the city’s self-governance rights. The suit claimed the use of troops as a federal military police force violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.

Federal Judge’s Ruling: On November 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled in favor of the District of Columbia. She concluded that the Trump administration’s deployment of over 2,000 Guard members was unlawful and illegally intruded on the local officials’ authority to direct law enforcement in the district.

Injunction Issued: The judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering an end to the deployment.

Order Stayed Pending Appeal: To allow the Trump administration time to appeal the decision, Judge Cobb paused (stayed) her order for 21 days. The order is set to go into effect on December 11, 2025, unless an appeals court intervenes.

Emergency Motion for Appeal: Following the November 26 shooting of the two guardsmen, the Trump administration filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court, requesting a stay of Judge Cobb’s order to keep the National Guard in D.C.. The administration argued that the injunction impinges on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief of the D.C. National Guard and hinders successful efforts to address crime rates.

Similar lawsuits and court orders challenging National Guard deployments have also occurred in other cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon, with several federal courts blocking the administrations’ efforts.”

The Trump administration had time to file an emergency motion after the shooting only hours ago?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, the Trump administration was able to file an emergency motion with a federal appeals court within hours of the shooting because standard court procedures allow for after-hours and emergency filings.

Here is a breakdown of the timeline and process:

The shooting occurred around 2:15 p.m. ET on Wednesday, November 26, 2025.

The Trump administration, via the Department of Justice, filed the emergency motion to block the judge’s injunction around 2:57 p.m. ET, approximately 40-45 minutes after the attack.

Emergency motions are a standard part of legal procedure for situations requiring immediate action to prevent “irreparable harm”. Given that a federal judge’s order was set to potentially force the removal of all National Guard troops from the city starting December 11, the administration had already been preparing its appeal. The shooting provided an immediate and material context for the emergency filing, which argued that removing the troops would put the city at further risk and impinge on the President’s authority.

Federal courts have specific procedures for emergency filings, which often involve contacting a member of the clerk’s office after normal business hours to ensure the motion is processed immediately.”

Did the Trump Administration do anything to help the situation before filing?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, the Trump administration took several immediate actions to address the situation before and concurrently with filing the emergency court motion.

Immediate Actions Taken

Ordered Additional Troops: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that President Trump ordered an additional 500 National Guard members to be deployed to Washington, D.C., in response to the shooting. This action aims to “stiffen our resolve” and “secure our capital”.

Official Statements and Condolences: The President issued statements via social media (Truth Social) and a subsequent video address, calling the attack a “heinous assault,” an “act of evil,” and an “act of terror”. He expressed support for the wounded guardsmen and their families, writing, “God bless our Great National Guard, and all of our Military and Law Enforcement. These are truly Great People. I, as President of the United States, and everyone associated with the Office of the Presidency, am with you!”.

Briefings and Monitoring: President Trump was briefed on the situation shortly after it occurred and a statement from the White House press secretary confirmed he was “actively monitoring this tragic situation”.

Coordination with Law Enforcement: The FBI and local D.C. police immediately began joint investigations, treating the incident as a national security matter and potential act of terrorism.

Ground Stop: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a ground stop at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) due to security concerns, a standard procedure in such incidents.

The emergency court motion was filed quickly (around 45 minutes after the shooting) but was part of an ongoing legal effort that began before the shooting, appealing a judge’s ruling from the previous week. The administration used the context of the attack in their motion to emphasize the necessity of the National Guard presence.”

Were there any eyewitnesses?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, there were multiple eyewitnesses to the shooting and its immediate aftermath in the busy downtown Washington, D.C. area near the White House. The incident occurred around 2:15 p.m. ET, a time when many people were out for lunch or holiday shopping.

Eyewitness accounts include:

Sounds of Gunfire: Multiple witnesses reported hearing “rapid gunshots,” often describing a pattern of a few shots followed by a longer barrage. Some initially mistook the sounds for construction noise before realizing what was happening.

Chaos and Panic: Witnesses described seeing people, including “a lot of little children,” running in panic to find shelter in nearby cafes, a liquor store, or hiding in Farragut Square.

Aftermath Scene: One D.C. resident, Michael Ryan, who was on his way to lunch, described seeing law enforcement officers with a person “pinned on the ground yelling at them to stay down,” presumably the suspect. He also saw one of the wounded National Guardsmen on the ground, with people attempting to perform CPR on him.

Visible Injuries: Another witness, Emma McDonald, saw a National Guard member being rolled on a stretcher with his head covered in blood, noting he appeared to be using an automated compression system on his chest.

Law Enforcement Response: Witnesses universally described law enforcement and emergency personnel swarming the area “almost instantly” after the shots were fired.

Video footage from the scene, including from a nearby Metro station and a building window, was also reviewed by officials and shared on social media, confirming the sequence of events, including the moment the suspect was subdued.”

What are the lessons we can learn from this incident?

GoogleAI Mode: “The shooting of the two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., highlights several critical lessons and policy implications:

Vulnerability of Visible Personnel: The incident underscores the inherent risks faced by security forces operating in public spaces, even during high-visibility patrols. The guardsmen were in uniform, making them visible and vulnerable targets in an “ambush” style attack. This raises questions about operational security for troops in non-combat zones.

The Intersection of Public Policy and National Security: The attack occurred amidst a heated public and legal debate over the appropriateness of the National Guard’s deployment for domestic policing and “beautification” work. The incident has intensified the political debate about local autonomy versus federal control over law enforcement resources.

The Human Cost of Political Disputes: The incident puts a human face on the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding the deployment. Service members bear the immediate risk of decisions made in the political arena while generally being unable to publicly comment on the debates themselves.

Incident Response and Crisis Communication: The initial conflicting reports about the condition of the guardsmen (dead vs. critical condition) highlights the importance of precise and timely information during a crisis and the need for officials to confirm information before making public announcements.

Immigration and National Security Review: The fact that the suspect was an Afghan national who entered the U.S. through a resettlement program has prompted the Trump administration to order a review of all individuals admitted under Operation Allies Welcome, a lesson learned that could lead to policy changes in immigration vetting procedures.

Incident Response Preparedness: The rapid response by law enforcement and military personnel to the scene demonstrates the effectiveness of planning and preparedness in high-security areas. The ability of other troops to subdue the gunman immediately likely prevented further harm.

The Nature of Domestic Terrorism: The FBI is investigating the incident as a possible act of terrorism, serving as a reminder that threats can come from within, often from “lone gunmen” who target symbols of government or authority.

Overall, the incident emphasizes the need for continuous evaluation of security protocols for domestic deployments, clear lines of authority between federal and local entities, and careful communication during rapidly unfolding crises.”

What is the update on the two National Guard members?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of the latest updates on Thursday, November 27, 2025, both National Guard members are in critical condition. They remain hospitalized after undergoing surgery following the attack near the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

The two members of the West Virginia National Guard have been identified as:

Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20

Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro confirmed their critical status during a news briefing, adding that the victims had been sworn into service less than 24 hours before the unprovoked, “ambush-style” shooting. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakamal, is in custody, and authorities have not ruled out upgrading the current charges of assault with intent to kill if the victims’ conditions do not improve.”

What is the condition of the National Guard members now?

The victims have been identified as:

Specialist Sarah Beckstrom (20)

Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe (24)

Officials have stated that the charges against the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakamal, could be upgraded to first-degree murder if either of the guards dies. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro expressed that both families are “shattered and destroyed” and asked for prayers for their well-being.”

Explain: sworn into service less than 24 hours before

GoogleAI Mode: “The statement that the National Guard members were “sworn into service less than 24 hours before” the shooting means they had just taken their official oath of enlistment or commissioning shortly before the incident occurred, marking the formal beginning of their military commitment and active duty in this capacity.

Explanation of “Sworn Into Service”

The Oath: All members of the U.S. armed forces, including the National Guard, must take a solemn oath of enlistment or office. In this oath, they vow to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and obey the orders of the President and their superior officers. Taking this oath is the defining moment when a person officially becomes a service member.

Beginning of Service: For the National Guard members in question, Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, the time between this official ceremony and the shooting was less than a full day. This implies they were extremely new to their role, and this specific deployment was likely one of their first assignments after being officially inducted into service.

Significance: The short timeframe underscores the tragic and sudden nature of the event, where individuals who had just formally committed to service immediately faced a life-threatening situation. It emphasizes their fresh entry into the responsibilities and dangers associated with military duty.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Were they assigned as a team? Is it common to team up two members at the beginning of active duty together?

GoogleAI Mode: “It is highly probable that Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe were assigned as a team for their patrol duty. While specific assignment details are not publicly confirmed, it is standard military procedure and common practice for service members to operate in pairs or small units, especially when conducting “high visibility patrols” in public, non-combat environments.

Team Assignments in the National Guard

Standard Military Practice: The military emphasizes the “buddy system” or fire teams for security and safety. Members are rarely left alone, ensuring mutual support, accountability, and the ability to respond effectively to threats or emergencies. The fact that the suspect targeted two guardsmen further suggests they were together when the attack occurred.

Mission Requirements: The D.C. mission involves patrolling specific public areas. These assignments are coordinated, and units work together to cover designated sectors.

Experience Pairing: In the military, it is common to pair more experienced personnel (like a Staff Sergeant) with newer or less experienced members (like a Specialist) for on-the-job training, mentorship, and leadership. Given that both members were “sworn in” just the day prior, this pairing would have been a logical and standard operational decision to ensure both personnel had adequate support and supervision during their patrol.

In short, safety and operational effectiveness dictate that National Guard members perform these duties in teams, making it the standard protocol for their assignment.”

Doesn’t just sworn in mean two members without lengthy experience were paired together? Is that common?

GoogleAI Mode: “No, “just sworn in” does not necessarily mean two members without lengthy experience were paired together. The term “sworn in” in this context likely refers to the formal induction into the specific active duty mission and deployment to Washington, D.C., not the start of their entire military careers.

Here is the distinction:

Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe (24): The rank of Staff Sergeant (E-6) is a mid-level noncommissioned officer (NCO) rank in the Army National Guard. To achieve this rank, a service member typically needs significant prior experience and time in service, often several years (e.g., 4-7 years of time in service is common for promotion to SSG). Staff Sergeants are expected to be highly skilled, have supervisory and training responsibilities, and often lead squads.

Specialist Sarah Beckstrom (20): Specialist (E-4) is an entry-level enlisted rank above Private. While a Specialist has less experience than a Staff Sergeant, they are beyond basic training and initial entry training.

Therefore, it is most likely that Staff Sergeant Wolfe had several years of experience, while Specialist Beckstrom was a more junior member.

Commonality of Pairing:

It is very common military practice to pair personnel of different ranks and experience levels for patrol and security duties. This structure, often called a “fire team” or simply a “buddy system” with a leader and a follower, ensures:

Leadership and Supervision: The more experienced NCO (Staff Sergeant Wolfe) provides direct leadership, guidance, and immediate supervision to the junior member (Specialist Beckstrom).

On-the-Job Training: This allows the junior member to learn procedures and gain practical experience safely under the guidance of a seasoned leader.

Mutual Support/Safety: Operating in pairs is a fundamental safety precaution for all military and law enforcement operations, ensuring that if one person is incapacitated, the other can call for help and provide immediate aid.

The statement that they were “sworn in less than 24 hours before” refers to the specific administrative process of being activated for this particular federal mission in D.C., rather than the start of their entire military lives.”

Does that mean the two members of the National Guard just arrived in DC within 24 hours of the shooting?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, based on reports from officials, the two members of the National Guard had arrived in D.C. recently and were officially activated for this specific mission less than 24 hours before the shooting.

Here’s the clarification:

Activation for D.C. Mission: U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro confirmed that both guardsmen were “sworn in” less than 24 hours before the attack. This refers to their formal activation and processing for the deployment to Washington, D.C. to assist with the crime-fighting initiative.

Recent Arrival: The guardsmen were members of the West Virginia National Guard and had recently traveled to the capital for this deployment.

Experience vs. Activation Date: As explained previously, one member was a Staff Sergeant with likely several years of experience, while the other was a Specialist. The “less than 24 hours” timeframe refers specifically to the start of their active duty period for this particular D.C. assignment, not the beginning of their entire military career.”

Tell me more about the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakamal. Why would the suspect target the National Guard?

GoogleAI Mode: “Suspect: Rahmanullah Lakamal

The suspect has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakamal (sometimes spelled Lakanwal), a 29-year-old Afghan national. He is in custody after being wounded in the exchange of gunfire, with non-life-threatening injuries.

Key details about Lakamal:

Nationality and Entry to U.S.: He is an Afghan national who entered the United States in September 2021 through “Operation Allies Welcome” following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Officials believe he overstayed his visa and was in the country illegally at the time of the attack, though he had reportedly applied for asylum.

Prior Association with U.S.: The CIA confirmed that Lakamal previously worked with the U.S. government as a member of a partner force in Kandahar, Afghanistan. This relationship “ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation”.

Personal Life: Before the shooting, he lived in Bellingham, Washington, with his wife and five children. He reportedly drove across the country to D.C. to carry out the attack.

Charges: He currently faces charges of assault with intent to kill while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. These charges may be upgraded if either of the guardsmen dies.

Why the Suspect Targeted the National Guard

A definitive motive for the shooting is not yet known; the suspect has been uncooperative with investigators. However, authorities are exploring several possibilities:

Targeted Attack: D.C. police and Mayor Muriel Bowser described the incident as an “ambush-style” and “targeted” shooting, suggesting the guardsmen were specifically chosen as victims.

Act of Terrorism: The FBI is investigating the shooting as a potential act of terrorism, serving search warrants as part of a “coast-to-coast investigation”.

Symbolic Targets: The National Guard members were a visible representation of the U.S. government and military stationed near the White House, making them symbolic targets.

Unclear Grievances: While he worked with U.S. forces in Afghanistan and was reportedly targeted by the Taliban himself, it is unclear if he developed an animus towards the U.S. government after his relationship with the CIA ended or during his time in the U.S..

Authorities are actively working to determine the exact reason why Lakamal chose to attack the two guardsmen in downtown D.C..”

What is the time frame from when the suspect worked for the US government and the shooting? What was he doing in between?

GoogleAI Mode: “The time frame between when suspect Rahmanullah Lakamal worked for the U.S. government and the shooting is approximately four years.

Time Frame: 2021 to 2025

Prior to September 2021: Lakamal worked with the U.S. government, including the CIA, as a member of a partner force in Kandahar, Afghanistan. This relationship “ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation” of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021.

September 2021: Lakamal entered the United States under the “Operation Allies Welcome” program, a month after the U.S. withdrawal, due to his prior work with U.S. entities.

November 26, 2025: The shooting of the two National Guard members occurred in Washington, D.C..

Activities in the Interim

Between his arrival in the U.S. in September 2021 and the shooting in November 2025, Lakamal took the following steps:

Resettlement in Washington State: He settled in Bellingham, Washington, with his wife and five children. He was among about 800 Afghan refugees in the state who received support from the U.S. government and faith-based groups like World Relief for housing, employment training, and language classes.

Asylum Application: He applied for asylum in 2024 and was reportedly granted asylum in April 2025.

Illegal Status: Despite being granted asylum, officials now believe he was in the country illegally as he had overstayed his visa.

Travel to D.C.: The U.S. Attorney stated that Lakamal drove across the country from Washington state to D.C. with a plan to carry out the attack.

The specific nature of his employment or daily life during most of this four-year period is not fully detailed in current reports, only that he was living in Bellingham with his family. The motive for his actions remains under investigation.”

Did anything change after the suspect was “reportedly” granted asylum in April 2025?

GoogleAI Mode: “After Rahmanullah Lakamal was reportedly granted asylum in April 2025, his legal status was complex, and subsequent events suggest he was no longer considered a legal resident at the time of the shooting.

Here’s what changed or developed:

Asylum Status: Lakamal’s application for asylum was approved in April 2025 under the Trump administration, a decision made after a vetting process that included background checks and interviews. The granting of asylum gave him protected status and a work permit.

“Undocumented” Status at Time of Shooting: Despite the asylum grant, Lakamal was considered to be in the U.S. illegally at the time of the shooting. This is because he had originally entered the country in 2021 on a two-year humanitarian parole that had expired in mid-2024, rendering him undocumented. His request for a green card, which is tied to the asylum grant, was pending.

Administration Response: Following the shooting, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) immediately suspended all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals indefinitely pending a review of security and vetting protocols.

Political Repercussions: The fact that Lakamal was granted asylum by the current administration became a focal point of political discussion regarding the vetting process of Afghan evacuees. President Trump called the incident an “act of terror” and vowed to “re-examine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan”.”

If the process for granting asylum is not an issue, what led to his case change after he was granted asylum in April 2025? If not the process, why stop all Afghan applicants for asylum?

GoogleAI Mode: “The suspension of all immigration requests related to Afghan nationals occurred in response to the specific, high-profile incident involving Rahmanullah Lakamal, regardless of whether a fault in the asylum process itself was identified. The action was politically and operationally motivated to conduct a system-wide review.

Here’s why his case “changed” and why all Afghan applicants were suspended:

Why his status remained complex after asylum was granted

The “change” in his case was not a change in a legal ruling, but the revelation that a gap in his legal paperwork had left him in a technically undocumented status. The process itself was followed correctly:

He entered legally on a temporary permit (humanitarian parole).

That permit expired.

He applied for asylum, which was granted.

He remained technically “undocumented” because the adjustment of status from an overstayer to a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) had not been finalized before the shooting.

The asylum process was followed; the issue was his status during the pending period, a common occurrence in the U.S. immigration system.

Why all Afghan applicants were suspended

The Trump administration’s decision to indefinitely suspend all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals stems from a political and operational response to the shooting, not a specific flaw in Lakamal’s individual asylum vetting process.

System-Wide Review: President Trump ordered a comprehensive “re-examination of every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan.” The suspension is a pause button to allow federal agencies to conduct this review.

Political Pressure/Optics: The incident created intense political pressure regarding national security and immigration vetting. The administration took immediate, decisive action to appear to be addressing security concerns following an attack near the White House involving an Afghan national.

Security Concerns: The administration argued the vetting process needed an immediate, high-level review to ensure no potential threats were overlooked, using Lakamal’s case as a justification for a system-wide pause.

In short, the suspension was a broad, immediate policy shift enacted for political and national security review purposes following the attack, even if Lakamal’s individual granting of asylum was processed through standard procedures.”

The Trump administration is using the shooting to impose a wider political agenda relating to immigration?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, numerous political analysts and critics argue that the Trump administration is leveraging the shooting incident to advance its existing, wider political agenda relating to immigration.

Here’s how this is analyzed:

Political Rhetoric and Policy

Linking to National Security: In a video address, President Trump immediately labeled the attack an “act of terror” and claimed that “lax migration policies” are “the single greatest national security threat facing our nation”. This links a specific crime to a broader, long-held political argument about border security and migrant vetting.

Immediate Policy Action: Shortly after the incident, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) indefinitely halted the processing of all immigration requests for Afghan nationals. Critics see this as an immediate, sweeping policy response that targets an entire nationality based on the actions of one individual, aligning with a pre-existing goal of reducing immigration.

Focus on Mass Deportations: The incident has been used to justify the administration’s intention to reshape the country’s immigration system and launch mass deportations, a key promise of Trump’s campaign. The language used by administration officials and their allies points to a long-held agenda to “re-examine every single alien” from Afghanistan and remove anyone who “does not belong here or add benefit”.

Critics’ Viewpoint

Scapegoating and Generalization: Immigrant rights groups and legal experts argue that the administration is “scapegoating” and “tainting an entire immigrant community” for the actions of one man, ignoring the tens of thousands of other Afghan nationals who have successfully resettled and contributed to U.S. society.

Pre-existing Agenda: Analysts point out that the administration had already been implementing aggressive immigration enforcement policies and seeking to curtail both legal and illegal immigration long before this specific shooting occurred. The incident provided a visible, high-stakes justification for actions that were already planned.

Timing of the Pause: The immediate pause on all Afghan applications, applied broadly without a demonstrated failure of the entire vetting system, is viewed by many as an opportunistically timed decision to push a pre-existing anti-immigration agenda.

In short, the response to the D.C. shooting aligns closely with the administration’s established hardline immigration stance and is being used as evidence to support those broader political goals.”

The Trump administration is using the shooting to impose a wider political agenda relating to the National Guard?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, there is a strong argument from critics and political analysts that the Trump administration is using the shooting to reinforce and advance its wider political agenda regarding the use of the National Guard and presidential authority over domestic law enforcement.

Reinforcing the Agenda

The administration’s response to the shooting aligns with its existing position in several ways:

Justifying the Deployment: The shooting is being used by the administration to validate its initial decision to deploy thousands of troops to D.C. as part of the “Safe and Beautiful” initiative, despite a federal judge ruling the mission was likely unlawful just a week earlier.

Doubling Down with More Troops: In the immediate aftermath of the attack, President Trump ordered an additional 500 National Guard members to the capital, essentially doubling down on the existing, legally challenged deployment.

Emphasizing “Law and Order”: The administration has consistently framed the deployment as necessary to combat crime in Democrat-led cities, and the shooting provided a high-profile, tragic incident to underscore their “law and order” message.

Countering Legal Challenges: The administration also filed an emergency court order seeking to keep the existing guard troops in the city, using the incident as a reason to argue the deployment’s necessity in the ongoing legal battle.

Criticisms and Debate

Critics argue the administration is “politicizing this tragedy” to shut down suggestions that the guardsmen were made vulnerable by an “ill-defined mission”.

Opponents suggest the deployment itself is a political show that puts service members at unnecessary risk and violates the traditional separation between the military and domestic law enforcement.

The incident has sharpened the debate over the Guard’s role and the president’s authority to deploy military forces domestically, a matter that is currently tied up in various legal battles across the country.”

What is the update on the two National Guard members?

The two members of the West Virginia National Guard have been identified as:

Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20

Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24

What is the condition of the National Guard members now?

The victims have been identified as:

Specialist Sarah Beckstrom (20)

Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe (24)

Explain: sworn into service less than 24 hours before

Explanation of “Sworn Into Service”

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Were they assigned as a team? Is it common to team up two members at the beginning of active duty together?

Team Assignments in the National Guard

Mission Requirements: The D.C. mission involves patrolling specific public areas. These assignments are coordinated, and units work together to cover designated sectors.

In short, safety and operational effectiveness dictate that National Guard members perform these duties in teams, making it the standard protocol for their assignment.”

Doesn’t just sworn in mean two members without lengthy experience were paired together? Is that common?

Here is the distinction:

Therefore, it is most likely that Staff Sergeant Wolfe had several years of experience, while Specialist Beckstrom was a more junior member.

Commonality of Pairing:

Leadership and Supervision: The more experienced NCO (Staff Sergeant Wolfe) provides direct leadership, guidance, and immediate supervision to the junior member (Specialist Beckstrom).

On-the-Job Training: This allows the junior member to learn procedures and gain practical experience safely under the guidance of a seasoned leader.

Tell me more about the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakamal. Why would the suspect target the National Guard?

GoogleAI Mode: “Suspect: Rahmanullah Lakamal

Key details about Lakamal:

Personal Life: Before the shooting, he lived in Bellingham, Washington, with his wife and five children. He reportedly drove across the country to D.C. to carry out the attack.

Charges: He currently faces charges of assault with intent to kill while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. These charges may be upgraded if either of the guardsmen dies.

Why the Suspect Targeted the National Guard

A definitive motive for the shooting is not yet known; the suspect has been uncooperative with investigators. However, authorities are exploring several possibilities:

Targeted Attack: D.C. police and Mayor Muriel Bowser described the incident as an “ambush-style” and “targeted” shooting, suggesting the guardsmen were specifically chosen as victims.

Act of Terrorism: The FBI is investigating the shooting as a potential act of terrorism, serving search warrants as part of a “coast-to-coast investigation”.

Symbolic Targets: The National Guard members were a visible representation of the U.S. government and military stationed near the White House, making them symbolic targets.

Authorities are actively working to determine the exact reason why Lakamal chose to attack the two guardsmen in downtown D.C..”

Does that mean the two members of the National Guard just arrived in DC within 24 hours of the shooting?

Here’s the clarification:

Recent Arrival: The guardsmen were members of the West Virginia National Guard and had recently traveled to the capital for this deployment.

What is the time frame from when the suspect worked for the US government and the shooting? What was he doing in between?

GoogleAI Mode: “The time frame between when suspect Rahmanullah Lakamal worked for the U.S. government and the shooting is approximately four years.

Time Frame: 2021 to 2025

September 2021: Lakamal entered the United States under the “Operation Allies Welcome” program, a month after the U.S. withdrawal, due to his prior work with U.S. entities.

November 26, 2025: The shooting of the two National Guard members occurred in Washington, D.C..

Activities in the Interim

Between his arrival in the U.S. in September 2021 and the shooting in November 2025, Lakamal took the following steps:

Asylum Application: He applied for asylum in 2024 and was reportedly granted asylum in April 2025.

Illegal Status: Despite being granted asylum, officials now believe he was in the country illegally as he had overstayed his visa.

Travel to D.C.: The U.S. Attorney stated that Lakamal drove across the country from Washington state to D.C. with a plan to carry out the attack.

Did anything change after the suspect was “reportedly” granted asylum in April 2025?

Here’s what changed or developed:

If the process for granting asylum is not an issue, what led to his case change after he was granted asylum in April 2025? If not the process, why stop all Afghan applicants for asylum?

Here’s why his case “changed” and why all Afghan applicants were suspended:

Why his status remained complex after asylum was granted

He entered legally on a temporary permit (humanitarian parole).

That permit expired.

He applied for asylum, which was granted.

He remained technically “undocumented” because the adjustment of status from an overstayer to a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) had not been finalized before the shooting.

The asylum process was followed; the issue was his status during the pending period, a common occurrence in the U.S. immigration system.

Why all Afghan applicants were suspended

How can the suspect not sustain life-threatening wounds, but both National Guard members are in critical condition?

GoogleAI Mode: “The difference in the severity of injuries between the National Guard members and the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is due to the location and nature of their gunshot wounds.

The two National Guard members, Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe, were shot in an “ambush-style” attack at point-blank range and sustained gunshot wounds to the head, which are inherently life-threatening and have left them in critical condition. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro mentioned that the shooter leaned over the first fallen guardsman to shoot again, and struck the second multiple times.

The suspect, Lakanwal, was shot by a fourth National Guard member who returned fire and was then subdued and held down by other troops. While he was shot multiple times, his wounds were to areas of the body that were not immediately life-threatening, which allowed for his apprehension and for authorities to classify his condition as non-critical.

The specific medical details of each person’s injuries determine the prognosis and condition. The nature of an “ambush” attack meant the guard members were vulnerable to severe, targeted injuries before they or their colleagues could respond.”

How close was the shooting to the White House?

GoogleAI Mode: “The shooting took place approximately two to three blocks northwest of the White House. The incident occurred near the intersection of 17th Street and I Street NW, which is by Farragut Square and close to the entrance of the Farragut West Metro station.

This is a busy downtown area with office buildings, restaurants, and a transit hub, just a short walk from the secure perimeter of the White House.”

How many National Guard members are involved?

GoogleAI Mode: “In the immediate incident near the White House, a total of four National Guard members were at the scene.

The roles they played were:

Two members (Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe) were shot and critically wounded in the ambush-style attack.

A third member was present and reportedly stabbed the suspect with a pocketknife during the struggle.

A fourth member returned fire, shooting the suspect multiple times and subduing him, effectively ending the attack.

Beyond those directly at the scene, there were nearly 2,200 National Guard troops already deployed across Washington, D.C., as part of the broader mission.”

World Peace

recent posts

about