The Wall Street Journal condemned Donald Trump’s “collective punishment” of Afghans after the fatal ambush on National Guard members in D.C., urging the White House not to use the actions of one person to target thousands of others.
After Wednesday’s attack, which led to the death of one Guard and left another with critical injuries, Trump immediately cast the shooting as validation for a purge of immigrants from the country.
But the Journal’s editorial—published in the Rupert Murdoch-owned title on Thursday afternoon—argued that tens of thousands of Afghans “building new lives… shouldn’t be blamed for the violent act of one man,” adding that punishing all Afghans “won’t make America safer.”
It said the alleged gunman—Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who fought with U.S forces during the Afghanistan war before being granted asylum after arriving in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome—should not “condemn all who assisted the U.S. and now live here.” It warned that scapegoating would deter future wartime partners.
With Lakanwal reportedly vetted by the CIA, the Journal also noted that “careful vetting is imperfect” and that the key policy question is how the suspect turned from “partner to terrorist.”
The paper concluded that the administration’s pause on Afghan cases and talk of mass removals misreads the threat and risks “collective punishment.”
After the attack, Trump tied the shooting to the 2021 Afghanistan evacuation—which included Lakanwal—but the Journal cautioned against exploiting the case to deport Afghans en masse.
It said an orderly withdrawal might have allowed tighter screening, but insisted collective reprisals are wrong and counterproductive.
After the editorial was published, Trump doubled down, using a Thanksgiving call with U.S. troops to fold the tragedy into a familiar anti-migrant tirade, promising a purge of immigrants.
He followed up with a late-night Truth Social post vowing to “permanently pause migration” from “all Third World Countries,” and attacked Minnesota officials and Somali immigrants.
The Journal’s disagreement with Trump continues the president’s fraught relationship with Murdoch’s flagship editorial page.
Last month, the Journal rebuked Trump over tariffs and the Reagan legacy, accusing him of acting like a “king” and delivering a history lesson on free trade. Earlier in November, the paper said Trump was his “own worst enemy” on the Jeffrey Epstein files saga, arguing his handling made him look like he had “something to hide.”
The Journal has also warned against Trump’s “retribution” drive—writing that working for him can be “equally as dangerous” as opposing him—after John Bolton was charged over classified material, in another sharp editorial from October.
But their biggest beef was over Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit against the Journal’s reporting on Epstein’s 50th “birthday book” in July. The Journal’s legal team has moved to dismiss and accused Trump of raising “red herring” issues. Trump has asked the judge to let the case proceed.
The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment.
