The Washington, D.C. National Guard Shooting and Its Fallout

The shooting of two newly sworn-in National Guard members in Washington, D.C., allegedly carried out by Rahmanullah Lakanwal — an Afghan national evacuated to the United States under Operation Allies Welcome — has sent shockwaves through U.S. political, military and immigration systems. The incident is not only violent and tragic, but also deeply entangled with America’s 20-year war in Afghanistan, the CIA’s shadow operations, U.S. immigration policies, and the current administration’s national security agenda.

This breakdown explains what happened, why it matters, and the competing narratives emerging from the event.

1. What Happened

On Wednesday, two members of the West Virginia National Guard — Sarah Beckstrom (20) and Andrew Wolfe (24) — were ambushed and shot at a bus stop in Washington, D.C. Both had been sworn in less than 24 hours earlier.

The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is accused of:

Driving across the country from Washington state
Carrying out a premeditated, targeted attack
Using a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver
Shooting one guard member twice and then turning on the second
Being stopped and injured by other guard members who intervened

The FBI has labeled the attack a potential act of terrorism, and Lakanwal faces charges of assault with intent to kill while armed, with possible elevation to first-degree murder if either guard member dies.

2. The CIA Connection

Shortly after the shooting, CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed that Lakanwal had previously worked with CIA-backed paramilitary units in Kandahar, an area that was ground zero for Taliban activity and U.S. counterterror operations.

Key points:

Lakanwal was part of a U.S.-partnered force
His work with the CIA was cited as justification for his relocation to the U.S.
He entered during the 2021 Afghan evacuation, after Kabul’s collapse

This admission adds a complex layer because many Afghan partners were fast-tracked through vetting as the U.S. scrambled to evacuate allies before Taliban retaliation.

3. Immigration Fallout: Immediate Freeze on Afghan Applications

In direct response to the attack, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced:

“Effective immediately, processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals is stopped indefinitely pending review.”

This is an unprecedented freeze affecting:

Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants
Family reunification cases
Green card applicants
Humanitarian parole requests

Tens of thousands of Afghans who aided U.S. forces are currently in pipeline limbo.

4. Political Response

Donald Trump called the attack:

An act of terror
Evidence that immigration is “the single greatest national security threat”
A reason to deploy 500 more National Guard troops to D.C.

Several lawmakers — particularly Democrats — criticized the administration’s messaging, noting the long-standing U.S. responsibility toward Afghan allies.

Meanwhile, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser lamented the militarization of the capital, saying these young soldiers “should be home in West Virginia.”

5. The Larger Context: Operation Allies Welcome

After the fall of Kabul, the U.S. evacuated more than 80,000 Afghans, including:

Interpreters
Intelligence assets
Contractors
Special counterterror units partnered with U.S. agencies

Vet-your-partner programs were rushed, with many files incomplete. Rights groups point out that delays could have cost lives of vetted allies left behind — but critics argue the expedited process allowed dangerous individuals to slip through.

Lakanwal’s background in CIA-linked paramilitary units does not automatically indicate extremist ties; such units were trained, funded, and supervised by the U.S. However, these roles also placed individuals under extreme trauma, combat exposure, and psychological stress.

6. Pros and Cons (Neutral Analysis)

Pros (Arguments from Supporters of the Afghan Evacuation)

Moral obligation: Afghans who risked their lives for U.S. forces deserved protection.
Strong vetting process: Even critics admit most evacuees went through multiple biometric and intelligence screenings.
Isolated case: There is no evidence of widespread radicalization among evacuees.
Avoiding Taliban reprisals: Many evacuees would likely have been tortured or killed if left behind.

Cons (Arguments from Critics of the Policy)

Security gaps: The 2021 evacuation was rushed, and intelligence vetting was incomplete.
Unknown combat histories: CIA-partnered Afghans operated under secrecy, complicating background checks.
Risk of insider threats: This incident strengthens arguments from those who warned about infiltration.
Political weaponization: The attack is already being used to justify crackdowns that affect thousands of innocent Afghans.

7. Broader Implications

The shooting has implications across several sectors:

National Security

Expect greater intelligence scrutiny on Afghan evacuees.
Possible expansion of domestic surveillance of foreign-born veterans or former partner forces.

Immigration Policy

The nationwide freeze may leave families stranded or separated indefinitely.
Legal challenges are already expected from civil rights organizations.

Military Relations

Strains growing between the National Guard and federal leadership.
Renewed debate on the deployment of troops within U.S. borders.

Foreign Policy

Could weaken trust with future foreign partners who assist U.S. operations.
May embolden adversaries who claim U.S. promises are unreliable.

Conclusion

The D.C. National Guard shooting is a deeply layered event that blends tragedy, geopolitics, intelligence operations, immigration policy, and domestic security politics.

Two young service members are fighting for their lives. A former U.S. ally now stands accused of terrorism. The U.S. government is freezing Afghan immigration and deploying more forces to the capital. And the debate over how America handles the consequences of its Afghanistan withdrawal has reignited with intensity.

This story will likely define national security discussions for months — if not years — to come.