When a journalist’s criticism of federal troops lands her branded a “disgusting ghoul” by the White House during an active shooting crisis, America faces a troubling question about who gets to speak truth to power—and when.
Quick Take
- Two National Guard members were shot near the White House on Thanksgiving, with the suspect in custody and victims in critical condition
- New Yorker writer Jane Mayer faced White House attacks for criticizing the National Guard deployment mere hours after the shooting
- The incident intensified an already contentious debate over the legality and appropriateness of federal troops deployed to Washington, D.C.
- The White House’s aggressive response to journalists signals a hardline approach to defending its security policies against media criticism
The Shooting and Its Immediate Aftermath
On Wednesday, November 27, 2025, gunfire erupted near Farragut Square, just blocks from the White House. Two National Guard members were shot in what authorities characterized as a targeted attack. The suspect, identified as 29-year-old Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was apprehended after being shot by another guardsman. Both victims remained in critical condition as FBI Director Kash Patel addressed the press approximately two and a half hours after the incident. The shooting prompted immediate lockdowns of nearby government buildings, including the White House and Treasury Department.
Within thirty minutes of the shooting, President Trump responded with characteristic intensity, posting that the “animal” responsible “will pay a very steep price.” The administration’s swift reaction set the tone for what would become an intense political firestorm—one that extended far beyond the shooter himself to encompass critics of the very deployment that placed these guardsmen in the capital.
The Deployment That Sparked Controversy
The National Guard troops hadn’t been in Washington, D.C. by accident. President Trump deployed more than 2,000 guardsmen to the capital in August 2025, officially stating they were needed to support federal and District law enforcement in combating crime. Yet the deployment generated substantial political controversy from its inception. A federal judge had recently ruled the deployment likely illegal, though the Trump administration appealed the decision and guardsmen remained in the District pending the appeal’s outcome.
Jane Mayer, the New Yorker writer who would soon face White House condemnation, had already expressed skepticism about the deployment’s necessity. Appearing on The Political Scene podcast the previous month, she characterized Trump’s decision to send troops to American cities as “shocking” and “crossing new barriers.” She observed that during her time in D.C., the guardsmen “had virtually nothing to do but pick up trash”—a detail that would prove central to her criticism and the White House’s fury.
When Criticism Becomes Unforgivable
Approximately one hour after the shooting, Mayer posted her assessment on X, stating that the National Guard “should never have been deployed” to Washington. Her timing proved catastrophic for her standing with the administration. The White House’s “Rapid Response 47” account responded with vicious language, characterizing Mayer as a “sick, disgusting ghoul” for her comments made while two guardsmen lay wounded in critical condition.
The White House wasn’t finished. The administration also attacked MS NOW correspondent Ken Dilanian for attempting to contextualize the shooting within broader political tensions surrounding uniformed personnel in American cities. Dilanian had noted that “there are some Americans that might object” to seeing people in uniforms walking around cities—a straightforward observation that nonetheless drew White House condemnation as “beyond sick.”
The White House’s framing proved potent: it positioned Mayer and Dilanian as insensitive to wounded American patriots rather than as journalists attempting to analyze a complex political situation. By attacking critics during an active crisis, the administration effectively weaponized the tragedy against those questioning its policies.
The Motive Remains Elusive
As of the initial reporting, investigators remained in the early stages of determining Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s motives. Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the uncertainty, stating, “We still don’t know the motive. There’s a lot that we haven’t yet figured out.” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser characterized the incident as a “targeted shooting,” but the specific target and motivation remained unclear. Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth described the attack as a “cowardly, dastardly act,” emphasizing that the military would “never back down” and would “secure our capital.”
This uncertainty proved significant. Without established motives, the incident became a blank canvas onto which various political actors projected their preferred narratives—whether defending the deployment as necessary security or criticizing it as performative militarization.
Escalation and Response
President Trump responded to the shooting by ordering an additional 500 National Guard troops deployed to the nation’s capital. The administration’s commitment to the deployment appeared unwavering, despite the federal judge’s legal ruling and the ongoing controversy. The White House’s aggressive attacks on journalists signaled that criticism of the deployment would be met with fierce institutional pushback, particularly during crisis moments when emotional intensity runs highest.
The incident crystallized a troubling dynamic: the White House deployed federal troops to Washington, D.C., a deployment a federal judge deemed likely illegal, then attacked journalists for questioning that deployment when violence occurred. The administration effectively created a situation where criticism of its security policies became characterized as disrespect for wounded soldiers—a rhetorical move that conflated policy criticism with personal attacks on the victims.
The Broader Stakes
This controversy extends beyond a single shooting or a dispute between the White House and individual journalists. It raises fundamental questions about government accountability, the role of an independent press, and the appropriate balance between security measures and civil liberties. When federal troops deploy to American cities and journalists face official condemnation for questioning that deployment, the implications ripple across democratic institutions.
The incident also revealed the administration’s willingness to escalate rhetoric against media figures during active crises. By attacking Mayer and Dilanian while guardsmen remained in critical condition, the White House weaponized tragedy to silence policy criticism. For readers concerned about press freedom and governmental overreach, this moment represented a significant indicator of how the second Trump term would handle dissent and critical analysis.
