Tulsi Gabbard sharply criticized Rep. Bennie Thompson after he called the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., an “unfortunate accident” during a House hearing, and Thompson later said he had misspoken. The attack left Spc. Sarah Beckstrom dead and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe critically wounded, and the exchange on Capitol Hill sparked a fierce debate about labeling and responsibility. This piece covers the original hearing remarks, how leaders reacted, and why calling the incident what it was matters to Republicans demanding accountability.
Tulsi Gabbard did not hold back on Fox & Friends, calling the exchange “absolutely infuriating” and forcing the issue into plain language. “It is absolutely infuriating,” she said, and added pointedly, “He 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.” Her tone was blunt and unforgiving.
The shooting happened on Thanksgiving Eve when two National Guard members were struck just blocks from the White House, an attack allegedly carried out by an Afghan refugee. Spc. Sarah Beckstrom was killed and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe was critically wounded, which raised immediate questions about vetting and the safety of troops assigned to protect the capital. For many conservatives, this was not just a tragedy but a failure of policy.
At the House Homeland Security Committee hearing, Rep. Bennie Thompson referred to the incident as “the unfortunate accident that occurred with the National Guardsman being killed” while addressing the secretary. That phrasing set off an on-the-record pushback from others at the hearing who refused to soften the label. Secretary Noem pushed back strongly with a stark rebuttal, saying, “You think that was an unfortunate accident? It was a terrorist attack.”
Thompson later faced questions about his wording on television and offered a rapid clarification, conceding the slip. Asked on CNN whether he stood by calling the shooting an “unfortunate accident,” Thompson replied, “Oh, absolutely not,” and explained he had been moving to a different point about asylum approvals. He went on, “And obviously, let me be clear, I was moving toward the discussion that [Kristi Noem] could not blame Joe Biden on the situation because she approved this person’s asylum application and that’s where we were headed and so the issue is…”
When pressed live on air, Thompson acknowledged the mistake in plain terms. Bolduan then interrupted Thompson, asking him, “You’re saying you misspoke?” and he responded, “Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.” That admission mattered, but it did not erase the damage done by the initial rhetoric or the broader pattern of language that downplays violent acts tied to extremist ideologies.
Tulsi also pointed to a larger failure among leadership to call out threats plainly, saying leaders on both sides “have refused to identify this Islamist terrorist threat for exactly what it is, which is one of the reasons why we find ourselves in the position that we’re in today.” Those words land hard for conservatives who see repeated unwillingness to name the enemy as part of a policy failure. Republicans want clear language linked to concrete actions: better vetting, accountability for asylum approvals that go wrong, and tougher standards for any refugee whose presence raises national security flags.
This moment is not just about a single verbal slip at a hearing. It is about whether officials will stop soft-pedaling violent acts that target our service members and whether they will change policies that leave families and troops exposed. The demand from the right is straightforward: call the attack what it was, reassess the systems that allowed it, and answer to the American people without deflection or excuses.
