Inside the Legal Framework of the D.C. National Guard Mission

WASHINGTON, D.C. — December 5, 2025

Recent public conversations have raised questions about the continued presence of National Guard members in Washington, D.C., the legality of their deployment, the nature of their duties, and the national-security implications surrounding the November 26 attack that killed one West Virginia Guardsman and critically injured another. Because these topics involve federal law, public-safety data, immigration procedure, state authority, terrorism statutes, and an ongoing federal investigation, this report examines only what can be confirmed through THE WHITE HOUSE, THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF WEST VIRGINIA, THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF D.C., THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR D.C., THE FBI, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, THE U.S. CODE, and the actions of THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY and THE D.C. SUPERIOR COURT. No second-hand claims or opinions are included in this analysis.

Among the most widely circulated assertions is the idea that West Virginia Guard members were “sent unwillingly” or used for a political stunt. However, THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF WEST VIRGINIA publicly stated on December 1 that the Guardsmen serving in Washington, D.C., were present on a “voluntary basis,” with none requesting to withdraw from duty even after the fatal November attack. According to the governor’s public remarks, these individuals “knew the mission” and had the training and background to execute it. This directly contradicts claims of coercion or politically forced service. It also reflects long-standing National Guard practice nationwide in which out-of-state federal-support missions frequently rely on personnel who volunteer for specialized or extended assignments.

Questions have also been raised about the legality of out-of-state deployments. Under Title 32 of THE U.S. CODE, specifically § 502(f), National Guard members may perform “operational missions” requested by federal authorities while remaining under the command of their state’s governor. THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU has long confirmed that governors retain command authority under Title 32, even during federally funded missions. For decades, administrations from both parties have used Title 32 operations for post-9/11 airport security, border-support missions, disaster responses, and National Capital Region security. Additionally, when the legality of West Virginia’s participation was challenged in state court, the case was dismissed by THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, allowing the mission to continue under current statutory authority. The claim that the deployment itself is unlawful is not supported by federal statute or the existing court record.

Some commentary has minimized or questioned the nature of the duties carried out by Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., implying that their tasks lack seriousness or appropriateness. According to operational doctrine published by THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, Guard members under Title 32 may be assigned to security support, public-safety presence, infrastructure assistance, traffic coordination, logistical support, and civil-support missions. These functions have been performed nationwide for decades and do not require a crisis declaration to be legitimate. Guard activity under Title 32 must match authorized mission categories, not subjective assessments of task significance. Nothing in federal law restricts Guard duties only to high-risk environments or emergency conditions.

Another common claim is that West Virginia taxpayers are burdened by these deployments. Under Title 32 activation, Guardsmen supporting federal missions are funded by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, including salary, transportation, lodging, and operational expenses. Title 32 is specifically designed for federally requested, federally funded, state-controlled missions. West Virginia’s budget is not diminished by the presence of its Guard members in Washington, D.C., and Guard structure ensures that readiness is maintained even when subsets of personnel support other jurisdictions.

Discussion has also centered on conditions in the District of Columbia itself, with some arguing that public-safety circumstances did not justify additional support. Crime data published by THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF D.C. for year-to-date 2025 shows significant reductions in homicide, robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, burglary, and overall violent crime compared with the same period in 2024—declines that follow earlier years of elevated violent-crime levels. At the federal level, THE WHITE HOUSE formally described Washington, D.C., as facing a “crime emergency,” indicating that national-level attention was warranted before and during the current deployment. While crime drops recorded by THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF D.C. do not by themselves attribute cause, the data confirm that the District faced serious conditions in prior years that contradict attempts to minimize the scope of public safety challenges.

A further argument claims that the deployment is a political gesture rather than a state-led decision. Under Title 32, THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF WEST VIRGINIA retains command authority and must approve any federally requested mission. Federal authorities cannot compel West Virginia to deploy Guard members under Title 32 authority. The governor’s public statements affirming voluntariness and mission suitability indicate that the deployment was state-authorized, not a forced political directive from the federal level. Assertions that the state acted under federal political pressure are not supported by the structural requirements of Title 32 or by the governor’s documented public statements.

Debate intensified after the November 26 attack in which two West Virginia Guardsmen were ambushed near Farragut West. According to THE FBI, THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR D.C., and THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, the shooter—identified as Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal—entered the United States on September 8, 2021 under an official evacuation pathway and was granted asylum in April 2025 after vetting conducted by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. According to information acknowledged by THE FBI and summarized by THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR D.C., Lakanwal previously served in Afghan units that operated alongside U.S. intelligence and military personnel prior to his entry into the United States. After resettling in Washington state, he traveled across the country to Washington, D.C., where he allegedly ambushed the Guardsmen. The case is being prosecuted in THE D.C. SUPERIOR COURT, and THE FBI is conducting a parallel terrorism investigation into potential radicalization or foreign-nexus factors.

Under federal law, terrorism is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2331 of THE U.S. CODE as violent criminal conduct intended to intimidate a population or influence government action. THE FBI and THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY have confirmed that the attack is being investigated within the terrorism framework, and THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has publicly described the incident as a terrorist attack. Whether any administration’s policy response is viewed as effective or inadequate is a matter for public debate, but characterization of the federal investigation as exaggerated or politicized is not supported by the fact that multiple agencies are formally treating the case as an international terrorism matter.

Discussion has also arisen regarding recent federal immigration restrictions announced after the attack. Some have claimed these measures are unprecedented or motivated by xenophobia. The historical record shows otherwise. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter directed THE WHITE HOUSE to cancel visas and restrict entry of Iranian nationals during the hostage crisis. In 1996, President Bill Clinton issued entry suspensions through THE WHITE HOUSE for individuals associated with foreign terrorist organizations. In 2011, President Barack Obama paused Iraqi refugee processing following a terrorism investigation in Kentucky, with enhanced screening implemented by THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. On the Republican side, President Ronald Reagan issued nationality-based entry restrictions targeting Cuban officials through presidential proclamation from THE WHITE HOUSE. After the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush implemented multiple screening and entry restrictions under national-security authority exercised by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. More recently, President Donald Trump issued travel restrictions through THE WHITE HOUSE, with reviews conducted by THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Going back even further, President Woodrow Wilson issued wartime immigration restrictions enforced by THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE during World War I, targeting nationals of enemy governments as a matter of security. In the 19th century, President Chester A. Arthur signed and enforced nationality-based immigration suspensions through THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES under the Chinese Exclusion Act. These examples demonstrate that the use of immigration restrictions during periods of heightened national-security concern spans more than a century and a half, under presidents of both parties, with varying motives but consistent use of federal authority.

When viewed collectively, the first-hand record from THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF WEST VIRGINIA, THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, THE U.S. CODE, THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF D.C., THE WHITE HOUSE, THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR D.C., THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and THE FBI does not support the claims that the deployment is illegal, coerced, unnecessary, or politically staged, nor does it support the idea that the federal response to the November attack is exaggerated. The evidence shows a voluntary state-authorized Title 32 mission, longstanding statutory authority, documented public-safety challenges, and a violent ambush that multiple federal agencies are investigating under terrorism statutes. While debate and policy disagreement are essential in a constitutional system, the conversation begins with what the first-hand record actually shows.

The Appalachian Post is an independent West Virginia news outlet dedicated to clean, verified, first-hand reporting. We do not publish rumors. We do not run speculation. Every fact we present must be supported by original documentation, official statements, or direct evidence. When secondary sources are used, we clearly identify them and never treat them as first-hand confirmation. We avoid loaded language, emotional framing, or accusatory wording, and we do not attack individuals, organizations, or other news outlets. Our role is to report only what can be verified through first-hand sources and allow readers to form their own interpretations. If we cannot confirm a claim using original evidence, we state clearly that we reviewed first-hand sources and could not find documentation confirming it. Our commitment is simple: honest reporting, transparent sourcing, and zero speculation.

Sources

• THE WHITE HOUSE
• THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF WEST VIRGINIA
• THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF D.C.
• THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR D.C.
• THE FBI
• THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
• THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
• THE U.S. CODE
• THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY
• THE D.C. SUPERIOR COURT