Washington, D.C., was rocked by a tragic incident on Wednesday, November 26, 2025, that ignited a firestorm of debate.
According to Fox News, on that day, just blocks from the White House and a day before Thanksgiving, two National Guard members were shot, leading to sharp criticism of a prominent journalist’s response and exposing deeper tensions over security policies in the nation’s capital.
The shooter, identified by law enforcement sources as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, attacked in broad daylight.
This horrifying event quickly drew public attention, but it was the commentary from Jane Mayer, a writer for The New Yorker, that poured fuel on an already volatile situation.
Mayer argued that the deployment of these guardsmen was unwarranted and merely a political stunt, a stance that didn’t sit well with many who value their service. She noted living in D.C. and observing the guardsmen with little to do beyond menial tasks, a claim that has been met with fierce opposition from conservative voices.
“This is so tragic, so unnecessary, these poor guardsmen should never have been deployed,” Mayer posted on social media, adding that she saw them “pick up trash” as part of a “political show.”
“I live in DC and watched as they had virtually nothing to do but pick up trash. It was for political show and at what a cost,” she continued. If Mayer thought this would be seen as empathy, she miscalculated—her words were swiftly branded as insensitive by those who see the Guard’s presence as vital to safety.
Trump White House Communications Director Steven Cheung didn’t hold back, issuing a blistering critique of Mayer’s take, accusing her of politicizing a tragedy. At the same time, defenders of the Guard’s mission stood firm.
“Jane, respectfully, shut the f--- up for trying to politicize this tragedy,” Cheung declared, emphasizing that the guardsmen “were protecting DC and trying to make the nation’s capital safer.”
The administration’s Rapid Response account on X went further, labeling Mayer a “disgusting ghoul.” At the same time, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier suggested she was unfairly blaming the victims rather than honoring their sacrifice.
Ben Williamson, assistant director for public affairs at the FBI, also condemned Mayer’s remarks, calling them a disgraceful attempt to downplay the guardsmen’s service at a time when they deserve respect, not scorn.
Amid the backlash, Mayer doubled down, responding to critics on social media by claiming homicides in D.C. were already declining before the National Guard arrived, a statistic she wielded to question their necessity.
Elsewhere, MS NOW correspondent Ken Dilanian stirred controversy by linking the shooting to broader unease over uniformed personnel in American cities, a comment that drew sharp rebuke from the White House rapid response team on X.
As The New Yorker has yet to comment on the uproar, this incident and the ensuing war of words highlight a deeper divide over how we secure our cities and honor those who stand on the front lines. While criticism of progressive voices like Mayer is warranted when it veers into dismissive territory, the pain of this tragedy—two brave individuals wounded in service—must remain at the forefront, not buried under partisan sniping.