A federal judge has ordered doctors to feed the man accused of gunning down two National Guard soldiers near the White House, even though he refuses to eat.
Quick Take
- Judge Amit Mehta authorized nonconsensual feeding and medical treatment for Rahmanullah Lakanwal after he stopped eating in jail.
- Lakanwal, 29, is charged in the November 2025 shooting near the White House that killed National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom and wounded Andrew Wolfe.
- Prosecutors say his refusal to eat became life-threatening, forcing an emergency hospitalization in July.
- The case revives a decades-old fight over whether the state can force food on a prisoner who says no.
The Attack Near the White House
Lakanwal, an Afghan national, is accused of ambushing two National Guard troops near the White House in November 2025. One of them, Sarah Beckstrom, died of her injuries. Andrew Wolfe survived after being seriously wounded.
Federal prosecutors, led by United States Attorney Jeanine Pirro, later filed a 17-count superseding indictment covering murder and firearms charges tied to the attack.
Lakanwal pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. He first appeared in court through an interpreter, and later hearings showed him arriving in a wheelchair, still recovering from injuries suffered during his arrest.
His legal team has argued the government’s evidence has gaps, but the core facts of the shooting and the charges are not in dispute.
Judge authorizes involuntary feeding of jailed suspect in deadly National Guard shooting https://t.co/UWZhaHbCvR
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) August 31, 2026
A Refusal to Eat Turns Dangerous
Sometime after being jailed, Lakanwal began refusing food and, at times, water. By early July 2026, the United States Marshals Service warned prosecutors he faced serious health risks, including death, from what a court filing called his “refusal to consume adequate nutrition for an extended period.”
He was rushed to a hospital for treatment prosecutors described as necessary to preserve his life.
At an emergency hearing that followed, Judge Mehta called Lakanwal’s condition “self-inflicted” and “dire,” according to a court transcript.
The judge also lifted a protective order that had been blocking prosecutors from accessing Lakanwal’s medical records, clearing the way for the government to track his declining health directly from hospital staff.
The Judge’s Order to Feed Him Anyway
The standoff came to a head in late August. On Saturday, Judge Mehta granted the government’s request to begin “nonconsensual” nutrition and medical care, overriding Lakanwal’s continued refusal to eat.
The order lets doctors intervene with feeding and treatment even though Lakanwal has not agreed to it, a step courts reserve for cases where the risk of death is judged too high to ignore.
Why Force-Feeding Splits Doctors and Judges
The order lands squarely inside a long-running clash between medical ethics and courtroom authority. The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Tokyo says a competent prisoner who refuses food should not be fed against his will, and the American Medical Association has repeatedly denounced the practice, even while acknowledging it remains common in custody settings.
The International Committee of the Red Cross takes the same stance, insisting a detainee’s choice and dignity come first.
Courts, however, have carved out an exception when a life hangs in the balance. Legal scholars note that pretrial detainees generally hold a constitutional right to refuse food and water, rooted in the Supreme Court’s Cruzan decision, but that right is not absolute once a judge finds the person’s life is genuinely at risk.
Judge Mehta’s order fits that pattern, treating survival, and the government’s ability to bring Lakanwal to trial, as the deciding factor.
What Comes Next in the Case
Lakanwal now faces both a murder trial and ongoing medical intervention he did not request. His attorneys have already signaled they intend to challenge the strength of the government’s evidence, but the force-feeding order itself addresses a narrower question: whether he survives long enough to face that trial at all.
Prosecutors have made clear they intend to keep him alive to answer for the charges against him.
The case now sits at an unusual crossroads of criminal law, medical ethics, and national tragedy. A man accused of killing a soldier defending the nation’s capital is being kept alive against his own wishes so that justice can run its course.
Whatever one thinks of the ethics debate, the court’s priority is plain: Lakanwal will answer for the charges in a courtroom, not avoid them in a hospital bed.
Sources:
usnews.com, wjla.com, abcnews.com, facebook.com, youtube.com, en.wikipedia.org
