The congressman who initially called the Washington, D.C. shootings of two National Guard members an “unfortunate accident” has clarified his remarks, drawing sharp criticism and renewed questions about vetting, asylum policy, and who is held accountable when servicemembers are targeted on American soil.
The lawmaker’s clarification came after his original phrase ignited outrage from across the political spectrum. He told reporters he was trying to steer a conversation away from blaming President Biden and toward the asylum approval that allowed the suspect into the country. That attempt to shift blame did not land, and the incident quickly became a political flashpoint.
On CNN, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson (MI-2) was pressed about whether he truly believed the shooting was accidental, and he forcefully corrected the record. “Oh, absolutely not,” Thompson said. “And obviously, let me be clear: I was moving toward the discussion that she could not blame Joe Biden for the situation, because she approved this person’s asylum application. That’s where we were headed. And so the issue is, oh, absolutely—absolutely.”
The exchange flared during a hearing where Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was being questioned about border and vetting failures. “You think that was an ‘unfortunate accident’!? He shot our National Guardsmen in the head,” Noem shot back, making clear that calling the attack anything less than deliberate would be unacceptable. The confrontation underscored how raw the political fallout has become, with lawmakers sparring over language as much as facts.
Responses were swift and severe. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called Thompson’s initial wording “infuriating” on Fox & Friends and argued the lawmaker “cannot and refuses to directly identify this attack for what it was: a terrorist attack on our own soil, against our National Guard men and women in this case, who are putting their lives on the line.” That condemnation tapped into a broader Republican demand for clarity and accountability.
The suspect has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who arrived in the United States in 2021. Authorities say Lakanwal previously served alongside U.S. military and intelligence personnel against the Taliban before being admitted to the United States on humanitarian parole, a temporary status that allowed him to live and work here.
After several years in the U.S., he applied for asylum in 2024 and was granted asylum in April 2025. Prosecutors say he shouted “allahu akbar” before shooting two National Guard members; one victim later died while the other is recovering. Lakanwal has pleaded not guilty and the formal motive has not been publicly established by investigators.
Security officials and critics point to two troubling possibilities that have been raised publicly: radical Islamic extremism as a motivating factor or coercion by the Taliban through threats to relatives back in Afghanistan. Both scenarios highlight gaps in how the United States evaluates risk when granting temporary entry and later asylum to individuals from conflict zones.
Lawmakers on the right have seized on the episode as proof that current asylum and parole procedures need tighter scrutiny and faster answers. Republicans argue this is not rhetorical nitpicking; it is about preventing future attacks on service members standing watch in the capital. That case for policy review now competes with ongoing investigations and criminal proceedings in court.
For many, the immediate focus is twofold: justice for the victims and a system that stops potential threats before they reach American streets. The debate over language—from “unfortunate accident” to “terrorist attack”—matters because it shapes public pressure and the policy response that follows. In the coming weeks, hearings, investigations, and prosecutions will determine facts while the political fight over responsibility and reform continues.
