In a shocking incident that has ignited intense national security and immigration debates, two members of the West Virginia National Guard were critically wounded in a targeted shooting near the White House on Wednesday afternoon. The alleged attacker, identified as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who entered the U.S. in 2021, was apprehended at the scene. This incident represents a significant moment in American security discourse and marks a troubling intersection of immigration policy, military deployment, and urban safety concerns.
The Incident: Timeline and Details
The shooting occurred near the Farragut West Metro station, just blocks from the White House, at approximately 2:15 p.m. on the day before Thanksgiving. According to law enforcement officials, the suspect approached the National Guard members, raised his firearm, and opened fire in what authorities have characterized as a targeted attack by a lone gunman.
Two members of West Virginia’s National Guard unit were struck by gunfire and immediately rushed to local hospitals where they were listed in critical condition. The suspect was also injured during the incident, though details about the nature of his injuries remain unclear. Law enforcement quickly apprehended Lakanwal at the scene, and he was taken into custody for questioning.
FBI Director Kash Patel announced that the assailant would be charged with assault on a federal officer. The incident occurred in a busy tourist district, and law enforcement cordoned off the area as bystanders—many celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday—witnessed the traumatic event.
Who is the Suspect?
According to people familiar with the investigation, the identified suspect is Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29 years old. Officials confirmed that Lakanwal entered the United States in September 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden-era program designed to provide refuge to Afghan nationals fleeing Taliban-controlled Afghanistan following the hasty U.S. withdrawal from the country.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed details of Lakanwal’s immigration status, stating that he had entered the country under the government immigration program approximately four years prior to the shooting. The discovery of his Afghan nationality and immigration background immediately sparked political consequences and policy responses at the highest levels of government.
Background: Operation Allies Welcome
Operation Allies Welcome was launched by the Biden administration in August 2021 in response to the Taliban’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan. The program processed and admitted approximately 77,000 Afghan nationals who were considered at risk due to their work assisting U.S. troops or their advocacy for democratic values during the two-decade American military presence in the country.
The initiative provided Afghan refugees with a two-year parole status, allowing them entry into the United States with the expectation that they would subsequently apply for other forms of permanent immigration status, such as asylum or Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs). Admitted Afghans were initially housed and processed at U.S. military facilities across the nation before being resettled in various communities throughout the country.
Biden administration officials framed the program as a humanitarian endeavor, emphasizing that those admitted underwent thorough security screening and vetting procedures. However, the program faced Republican criticism, with some lawmakers arguing that the rushed nature of the evacuation from Afghanistan led to inadequate security protocols.
Nationwide National Guard Deployment Under Trump
The two wounded National Guard members were part of a larger contingent of more than 2,000 troops deployed to Washington, D.C., by President Trump in August of this year. The deployment was announced as part of a broader crackdown on crime in the nation’s capital and represented an expansion of Trump’s controversial use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement purposes.
The National Guard troops have been tasked with patrolling metro stations, tourist areas, and streets throughout the capital, in addition to assisting with cleanup efforts on the National Mall. Their deployment has been highly contentious, with critics arguing that the use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law that generally prohibits federal troops from being used for civilian law enforcement.
Local officials and legal experts questioned the constitutionality and appropriateness of stationing military personnel on American streets. Just last week, a federal judge issued a temporary ruling blocking the National Guard deployment, finding it likely violated federal law and constitutional principles regarding local governance and the limits of presidential authority.
Political Response and Immigration Policy Changes
President Trump’s response to the shooting was swift and forceful. In a video address delivered from Mar-a-Lago, Florida, where he was spending Thanksgiving, Trump declared the attack an “act of terror” and “a crime against humanity.” He used the incident to intensify his administration’s immigration rhetoric and enforcement agenda.
Trump vowed to redouble efforts for mass deportations and called for comprehensive re-examination of all Afghan nationals admitted to the country. He stated: “We must now re-examine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan.” The president characterized Afghanistan as “a hellhole on earth” and warned about refugees from other conflict regions, specifically referencing Somali refugees in Minnesota.
Immediate policy consequences followed. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced an indefinite pause on processing immigration applications from all Afghan nationals, effective immediately. This sweeping moratorium affects not only those seeking asylum or green cards but also Afghan nationals who served alongside U.S. military forces during the 20-year war in Afghanistan and are eligible for Special Immigrant Visa programs.
The pause creates significant hardship for thousands of Afghan allies who remain in danger. Many are currently stranded in third countries or forced into hiding within Afghanistan itself, unable to pursue their previously viable immigration pathways to the United States.
Impact on Afghan Evacuees and Security Vetting
Security advocates and refugee organizations raised immediate concerns about the sweeping immigration pause. Mevlüde Akay Alp, a senior staff attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, warned: “The S.I.V. program was one of the few remaining pathways. And it’s unsure if even this will continue.”
A 2022 Migration Policy Institute estimate suggested approximately 200,000 Afghan immigrants were residing in the United States, with the largest populations concentrated in the Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, California metropolitan areas. The majority entered the country through legitimate government programs and underwent extensive security vetting.
Critics of the broad immigration pause argue that the actions of a single individual should not be generalized to an entire ethnic or national group. Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac, a coalition supporting Afghan immigration, stated that Afghans resettling in the U.S. “undergo some of the most extensive security vetting of any population entering the country,” urging against using this incident to “define or diminish an entire community.”
The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General had previously identified some data inaccuracies in Operation Allies Welcome processing, but comprehensive audits have not revealed systematic security failures. Afghan refugees, as a demographic group, have been repeatedly cited by law enforcement agencies as presenting minimal security threats compared to other populations.
National Guard Safety Concerns and Deployment Controversies
The shooting immediately validated concerns that had been widely expressed by National Guard members and military leaders regarding the domestic deployment initiative. In interviews before the incident, Guard troops expressed significant apprehension about their vulnerability while performing street patrol duties.
A California National Guard member, speaking anonymously, had recently stated to reporters: “I knew this would happen. I and my commanders worried that the assignment increased our risk of shooting civilians or civilians taking shots at us.” This sentiment was echoed by other Guard personnel deployed to major cities as part of Trump’s domestic security crackdown.
Internal directives distributed to National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., in August specifically warned of a “heightened threat environment” and cautioned about potential targeting by “grievance-based violence” actors and those “inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.” The memos advised troops to travel in pairs, change into civilian clothing when off-duty, and maintain heightened situational awareness.
The Broader Debate About Military Deployment in American Cities
This incident occurs amid an ongoing constitutional and political debate about the proper role of the National Guard in American domestic affairs. Since June, President Trump has deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, Portland, and other major American cities.
State and local officials in these predominantly Democratic-controlled cities have largely opposed the deployments, arguing they are unnecessary and represent government overreach. Multiple municipalities have filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployments. The Trump administration contends that military personnel are essential for addressing crime and enforcing immigration laws.
The Supreme Court is currently considering whether the president can constitutionally deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area against the objections of Illinois state leadership. Legal experts remain divided on whether these deployments violate federal law and constitutional principles.
Security at the White House and Metropolitan Washington
The shooting near the White House shocked many observers, given the extraordinary security measures surrounding the presidential residence. The area is typically considered among the most heavily protected locations on Earth, with multiple layers of security, law enforcement presence, and access controls.
The incident follows a pattern of violent incidents in the Washington, D.C., area over recent years. In May 2020, during racial justice protests, hundreds of individuals gathered outside the White House gates, and some threw bricks and bottles, prompting Secret Service officials to move President Trump to an underground bunker. Additionally, multiple vehicle-related incidents have occurred near the White House over recent years, including a 2023 incident involving a truck driver who stated intentions to harm the president.
Witness Accounts and Community Impact
Bystanders described the traumatic experience of witnessing the shooting. Stacey Walters, a 43-year-old nurse residing in Washington, was traveling via Uber near the scene when gunfire erupted. She witnessed small children being rushed to safety and described her experience: “I wanted to cry. I’ve never been so close to something like that, let alone at the holidays.”
The shooting disrupted Thanksgiving preparations for residents and tourists in one of Washington’s busiest tourist zones. Many people in the area were celebrating the holiday week, making the incident particularly jarring for communities already contending with elevated security concerns.
Conclusion
The shooting of two National Guard members near the White House represents a convergence of multiple significant issues facing America: National Guard deployment controversies, immigration policy debates, Afghan refugee resettlement, and homeland security concerns. The incident has immediately triggered policy responses at the highest levels of government and reignited discussions about the appropriate balance between security measures and constitutional governance.
As investigations continue into the shooter’s motivations and background, policymakers must carefully evaluate responses that do not unfairly generalize individual actions to entire communities while simultaneously maintaining rigorous security protocols. The incident underscores the complexity of contemporary American security challenges and the political sensitivities surrounding immigration policy in the current national discourse.
