USA Today’s recent coverage of the National Guard shooting in Washington, D.C., exemplifies why many Americans feel let down by mainstream media. From the very outset, the headline sets a clear agenda: “Trump sent National Guard to DC to fight crime. Then two were shot.” This not-so-subtle implication suggests that the responsibility for the violence lies squarely with former President Trump, rather than with the shooter or the circumstances surrounding the event.
The article quickly reveals its bias. It opens with a portrayal of Trump as someone eager to use military force as a means of addressing crime, framing the deployment in a negative light rather than as an action aimed at protecting citizens. It states that Trump ordered additional National Guard troops to Washington despite objections from various Democrats and judicial activists. The article fails to mention that this deployment led to a notable decrease in crime, making previously dangerous streets safer.
This reporting illustrates a troubling trend where accountability is misdirected. Rather than addressing the individual responsible for the attack, the narrative shifts blame to Trump, skirting the real issues at play. The shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national permitted into the U.S. under Biden’s refugee program, is almost entirely omitted from the discussion. His actions raise deeper questions about immigration policies and the vetting process that allowed him in. Trump’s efforts to deploy the National Guard were intended to restore order in the face of violence, yet the coverage chooses to ignore these broader implications in favor of political finger-pointing.
At the core of the situation is the tragic loss of Guardswoman Sarah Beckstrom. The article’s framing suggests that her death somehow reflects on Trump, diverting attention away from the culpability of Lakanwal and the policies that brought him to American soil. This kind of manipulation is emblematic of what many see as a disconnect between legacy media and the realities on the ground.
It’s worth noting that Biden’s administration had already seen a grave incident in Kabul, where 13 U.S. service members lost their lives during a chaotic withdrawal. Nearly four years later, the consequences of those decisions continue to unfold, raising serious questions about accountability. The legacy media’s reluctance to confront this uncomfortable truth only serves to exacerbate public distrust.
The article in USA Today does little to advance meaningful discourse on the complex relationship between military presence, crime, and immigration policies. Instead, it leans heavily into a narrative that serves a political agenda. Such reporting not only dilutes journalistic integrity but also alienates readers who seek honest, fact-based analysis.
In summary, the coverage surrounding the National Guard shooting displays a selective portrayal of events that aligns more with activism than with unbiased journalism. When outlets prioritize narrative over truth, they risk becoming increasingly irrelevant. The public deserves better than articles that strategically obscure facts to fit a particular narrative, especially when it comes to issues of safety and national security.
"*" indicates required fields
