Authorities name suspect in horrific attack on National Guard Members in DC

Authorities identified a suspect in a brutal shooting that left two National Guard members fighting for their lives in Washington, D.C., and the account of what happened has pushed the city into a storm of grief, anger, and political fire.

The shooting unfolded on a Wednesday afternoon in Farragut Square, a crowded slice of downtown D.C. where office workers, tourists, and commuters cross paths daily. It sits just blocks from the White House, and on any ordinary day, the area hums with casual noise, food trucks, and traffic. On this day, the calm shattered in seconds.

Shortly after 2:15 p.m., officials say a lone gunman approached three members of the National Guard who were on duty as part of ongoing security deployments in the capital. Without warning, he opened fire at close range. Two soldiers were hit before the third managed to return fire and wound the attacker. Witnesses described people ducking behind benches, running into buildings, and dropping to the ground as gunshots filled the square.

The two wounded soldiers, both from West Virginia’s National Guard, were rushed to a hospital in critical condition. Their identities were not immediately released, but Guard leadership confirmed they were part of a larger deployment of more than 2,200 troops currently stationed across the city—925 from D.C. and the remainder from various states.

The suspect was identified as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who arrived in the United States in 2021 after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. He entered through Operation Allies Welcome, a humanitarian resettlement program designed to relocate Afghans who had supported American missions or faced threats under Taliban rule. Lakanwal was taken into custody after being shot by one of the soldiers he targeted and was moved to a hospital under guard.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed the suspect’s immigration background and stressed that authorities believe he acted alone. No broader threat has been identified.

The shooting set off immediate political reactions. In a statement from Florida, President Donald Trump condemned the incident as “a heinous assault—an act of evil, an act of hatred, and an act of terror.” He announced an immediate increase in security screenings for individuals who entered the country through Operation Allies Welcome and said his administration would begin a comprehensive review of Afghan arrivals from the 2021 resettlement wave.

“We will ensure the individual responsible faces the steepest possible penalty,” Trump said in a recorded message. “This is not only a crime but an assault on peace and on every citizen who serves this country.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth followed by ordering an additional 500 National Guard members to the capital for the holiday weekend. Streets already busy with visitors, shoppers, and seasonal events now brace for heavier military presence.

Operation Allies Welcome, the program at the center of the controversy, resettled roughly 76,000 Afghans across the United States during its one-year span. Participants underwent health and security screenings before being placed in communities nationwide. Though the program was celebrated for its humanitarian goals, critics later questioned the thoroughness of the vetting process, citing gaps created by the chaotic conditions during the withdrawal.

Following the attack, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services temporarily paused new Afghan immigration requests pending a review of current screening procedures—a move that sparked mixed reactions from lawmakers, human rights groups, and veterans.

Political figures across the spectrum addressed the tragedy. Former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama issued statements condemning the violence, offering condolences, and urging national unity. Biden’s message focused on the families of the injured soldiers, calling their service “a testament to the courage and sacrifice that keeps the nation safe.” Obama described the attack as “a senseless act that wounds not just individuals, but the values we work to uphold.”

Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac—a coalition advocating for Afghan allies—warned against misdirected blame. “This was one man’s act of violence,” he said. “It must not be used to stigmatize thousands of Afghans who risked everything to stand with America.”

General Steven Nordhaus, head of the National Guard, cut short travel plans and returned to Washington immediately. “Our focus now is on our wounded members, their families, and the continued safety of those serving our nation,” he said.

These events reignited a long-running debate about balancing national security with humanitarian responsibility. Some argue that tragedies like this illustrate the need for tighter screening and monitoring. Others insist the incident must not overshadow the sacrifices Afghan allies made or derail the country’s commitment to providing refuge to those fleeing danger.

Public reaction has been polarized—grief for the soldiers, fear stirred by the attack, and frustration over renewed political battles. The attack also pushed forward uncomfortable conversations about integration, trust, and the challenges facing both refugees and the institutions responsible for vetting them.

Security experts emphasized that even the most thorough vetting process can never guarantee complete risk elimination. Human behavior is unpredictable. Motive, mental health, and personal history all play roles that screenings cannot always detect. But critics argue that vetting failures, if present, must be identified and corrected. Supporters of the resettlement program stress that one violent act cannot define tens of thousands of people who arrived seeking safety.

Across Washington, the atmosphere is tense. Police presence is visible in parks, transit stations, and around federal buildings. Barricades have been reinforced. Officers have been stationed at intersections that rarely see armed patrols.

Inside the Guard community, emotions are raw. Soldiers serving on holiday shifts now carry the weight of seeing their own targeted. Many joined deployments expecting routine patrols, crowd control, or quiet shifts. Instead, they found violence a stone’s throw from the White House.

Families of soldiers across the country watched the news with a mix of fear and resignation. Military service always carries risk, but attacks on U.S. soil—especially in the capital—hit a deeper nerve.

The heart of the issue circles back to something larger than immigration policy or partisan divides. Incidents like this expose the fragile threads binding a diverse society together. They force leaders to confront questions with no easy answers: How do you ensure safety without feeding prejudice? How do you honor refugees’ sacrifices without dismissing real security threats? How do you protect the nation without abandoning compassion?

In the end, the political noise will build, the investigations will unfold, and new policies will be debated. But beneath those layers lies the simplest and oldest truth: violence tears holes in communities that cannot be patched with anger alone. Healing requires clarity, fairness, and a refusal to let fear dictate the future.

Two soldiers now fight for their lives. Their families wait for updates no one ever wants to receive. Investigators sift through the attacker’s past for clues, and leaders weigh decisions that will shape the national conversation for months to come.

For now, the city stays on alert, the nation watches, and the story continues to expand beyond the crime scene—into politics, policy, morality, and the uneasy place where they collide.