National Guard Members Shot in DC

December 2, 2025
Arnav Goyal

On November 26, 2025, 2 West Virginia National Guard members were shot outside of a subway station in Washington, DC. The shooting shook many, showing the harsh reality that law enforcement faces in the present. However, this shooting also led to new fear-mongering and policies that may reverberate for years to come.

The shooting in DC happened next to Farragut Square Park, where an Afghan national by the name of Rahmanullah Lakanwal shot the 2 National Guard Officers. This comes after Trump controversially deployed the National Guard to the DC area over safety concerns, citing rising crime rates. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and the US Attorney for DC, Jeanine Pirro, indicated that the shooting was targeted. Law enforcement officials described it as an ambush-style attack, where the National Guard personnel were shot in the head. Sarah Beckstrom, one of the personnel present, passed away due to her injuries a day after the shooting, and Andrew Wolfe, the other, is currently in critical condition.

The suspect, Ramanullah Lakanwal, immigrated to the United States through the Operation Allies Welcome Program following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. He was granted asylum in April of this year. Yet, what makes this case interesting is that he worked with the CIA during the war, according to CIA Director John Ratcliffe. He was part of an Afghan elite counterterrorism unit (called a “Zero Unit”) that was operated by the CIA to raid suspected Taliban members, and had received prior funding and training from the agency. Moreover, he drove across the country from Washington state to perpetrate the attack, which investigators also raised as a potential point of further investigation.

The reactions came quickly, and many were quick to ignite a debate. President Trump addressed the nation after the shooting, condemning it and ordering 500 more National Guard troops to the capital. Officials from both sides also condemned the attack, with officials such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and House Speaker Mike Johnson calling for prayers. This has stoked a debate about two things:

The necessity to deploy the National Guard in the DC Area.
The implications of this shooting on immigration and Afghan refugees.

This debate grew more heated as the days passed, and as the suspect’s information became more public, the blame game became more apparent.

Immediately after the shooting, the Republican Party used it as a flashpoint to advocate for stricter immigration control. This started when Trump was inaugurated; however, it has only grown more. After the shooting, many criticized the Biden Administration for poor vetting of the refugees, even though the USCIS, under the 2nd Trump Administration, granted him asylum in the United States. This led to 2 things:

More suspicion on refugees coming from “third-world” countries
Heightened fears about further attacks from people from these countries

President Trump quickly seized the opportunity to start going stricter on immigration. In a Truth Social post on Thanksgiving, he announced that he would put an indefinite hiatus on migration from “Third World” countries, denaturalize migrants who pose security risks, and deport any foreign national who does the same. In a post on X, the Department of Homeland Security also advocated for the same position, advocating for the repatriation of many migrants. After the shooting, USCIS also halted all immigration applications for Afghan nationals, pending a review of vetting. They would also re-examine every green card issued to individuals from 19 countries established in a Presidential Proclamation before in June. This rapid policy move and the shooting have led to many worries, including Afghan refugees worrying about backlash and hate speech against them due to the shooting, and possible immigration raids.

This shooting doesn’t just shine a light on rhetoric, but also the impact events such as these can have on communities and policy. Some think that immigration policy should not be tightened, but some are advocating for moratoriums, which shows the extent of this impact and the furthering of a debate as well. One thing is certain: we will see policy reverberations, and also see a furthering of security.