Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., declined to comment Friday when reporters pressed her about earlier warnings that service members should be prepared to refuse unlawful orders, a stance she made amid longstanding debate over the domestic use of federal troops.
The exchange came as federal authorities continued investigating a Wednesday shooting in Washington that left one National Guard member dead and another critically wounded. The incident has raised questions about public safety, civil-military relations and how elected officials frame obedience to the law, issues central to our Crime Coverage.
Background
Slotkin in January cited comments former Defense Secretary Mark Esper recorded in his memoir when she warned about the possibility of federal troops being used against civilians. Esper’s memoir, published in 2022, recounts discussions in 2020 in which he wrote that the former president raised using the 82nd Airborne Division in Washington and made a remark about firing on protesters. The former president denied making the comment.
Earlier this month Slotkin and six other Democratic lawmakers released a video urging members of the military and intelligence community to decline orders that would be illegal or unconstitutional. The lawmakers said service members are obligated under law and military regulation to refuse commands that clearly violate the Constitution or statutes.
The matter ties into long-running legal and policy debates. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy federal troops domestically in limited circumstances, while the Posse Comitatus Act generally restricts the use of the U.S. military in domestic law enforcement. Military rules, including provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, require service members to disobey manifestly illegal orders such as those to commit crimes.
Details From Officials and Records
Authorities have identified the suspect in the Washington shooting as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national and former member of a counterterrorism unit in Afghanistan, according to local reports. Court records and statements from law enforcement made public so far say the suspect is in custody and faces first-degree murder charges.
- One National Guard member was killed and another was hospitalized in critical condition, officials said.
- The FBI has described the attack as targeted and said it is investigating the incident as a potential act of terrorism.
- Federal and local investigators have not publicly disclosed a motive and said their probe is ongoing.
Federal prosecutors will determine whether to bring additional charges, including any terrorism-related counts, as investigators gather interviews, surveillance and forensic evidence. Authorities have emphasized that charging decisions depend on the evidence collected and legal standards that govern both criminal and national security prosecutions.
Reactions and Next Steps
Slotkin’s Senate office did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and she did not address her prior remarks when questioned Friday, according to reporters at the scene. The earlier video urging service members to refuse illegal orders included Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., and Rep. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., among others.
Lawmakers and national security experts offered measured comments as investigators continued work. Some Republicans and conservative voices argued that public appeals for service members to consider refusing orders risk politicizing the military and could undermine unit cohesion, while supporters said clarifying the legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders is important to protect civil liberties and prevent abuses.
Local leaders and the National Guard command said they are cooperating with investigators and reviewing security protocols. The Guard’s response typically involves internal administrative steps, potential military justice referrals if misconduct is alleged, and coordination with civilian prosecutors where criminal acts are suspected.
Analysis
The deadly attack on uniformed personnel in the capital sharpens scrutiny of how elected officials discuss the use of force and the responsibilities of service members under the law. Statements by lawmakers about refusing unlawful orders intersect with constitutional principles, statutes that regulate the domestic use of force and the military’s own rules of engagement.
For governance and accountability, the immediate imperative is a transparent and thorough investigation that establishes motive, mode and any security lapses. Prosecutors and the FBI must balance public interest in timely information with preserving the integrity of ongoing work and protecting sensitive operational details.
Longer term, the episode underscores policy stakes for lawmakers and military leaders. Clear guidance and training on lawful orders, plus robust civilian oversight, help maintain public trust in institutions charged with preserving order and protecting citizens. The legal system and military justice frameworks will be central to resolving questions about command responsibility, the limits on domestic force and how to prevent politicization of the armed services while ensuring accountability for unlawful acts.
