Rep. Ro Khanna Calls for Government Shutdown to Remove National Guard from D.C., Cites Laken Riley Act as Lesson in Capitulation

Washington, D.C. – California Representative Ro Khanna has ignited a new debate on Capitol Hill by urging his fellow Democrats to consider using the threat of a government shutdown as leverage to secure policy concessions. At the heart of Khanna’s demand is a push to remove the National Guard presence from Washington, D.C., a measure he argues has outlived its necessity. In making his case, he invoked the controversial Laken Riley Act as evidence of what happens when Democrats, in his words, “capitulate too early.”

The remarks arrive just weeks ahead of a September 30 deadline to approve federal funding or risk a shutdown. With tensions already running high between Republicans and Democrats over spending and policy provisions, Khanna’s blunt call for disruption underscores the stakes of this year’s negotiations.

---

A Stark Warning from Within the Democratic Party

Khanna did not mince words in calling on Senate Democrats to hold firm. He referenced the Laken Riley Act—legislation fast-tracked earlier this year after the tragic death of college student Laken Riley in Georgia—to criticize what he described as premature Democratic concessions.

“Did we not learn our lesson when we acquiesced early on in the administration?” Khanna said. “We had Democrats vote for the Laken Riley Act, which has allowed for deportation without due process. We had Democrats vote for capitulation. We need to stand our ground.”

His comments suggest a brewing frustration with the party’s approach to negotiating with Republicans, particularly when it comes to immigration and security policies. For Khanna, taking a firm stand—even at the cost of a shutdown—may be strategically necessary to reverse what he sees as a pattern of yielding ground too easily.

---

The Laken Riley Act: A Flashpoint in Immigration and Public Safety Policy

The Laken Riley Act was named after a Georgia nursing student murdered earlier this year, reportedly by an undocumented immigrant. The case reignited fierce debates over immigration enforcement and border control, giving Republicans an opening to advance legislation that strengthened deportation authority for noncitizens accused of crimes.

While widely supported among Republicans, the bill drew mixed responses from Democrats. Some voted in favor, citing public safety concerns, while others viewed the act as chipping away at due process protections by expanding deportation powers without the full legal safeguards traditionally afforded.

The act is emblematic of a recurring political dilemma: how to balance public safety with the preservation of civil liberties. Its passage is being viewed in hindsight by Khanna and others as a warning against further compromise in upcoming negotiations.

---

The National Guard in Washington, D.C.: A Point of Division

Another key element of Khanna’s push is the call to remove National Guard troops from the capital. Their presence has been a matter of debate since heightened security measures were implemented in the aftermath of recent high-profile unrest in the city.

Proponents of maintaining the deployment argue that the Guard helps ensure rapid-response capability in the event of emergencies. Critics, however, contend that the quasi-military posture undermines the character of the nation’s capital and potentially intimidates residents and visitors alike.

Khanna aligns with the latter view, arguing that Washington should no longer resemble a city under armed guard. His demand places him at odds with some security officials and lawmakers who caution against scaling back protections in a turbulent political era.

---

The High-Stakes Countdown to a Government Shutdown

The U.S. government faces a September 30 deadline to approve a continuing resolution to maintain funding. Failure to do so would result in a partial shutdown, disrupting a wide range of federal services. Past shutdowns have affected millions of Americans by halting non-essential government operations, delaying pay for federal workers, and curtailing public services ranging from national parks to certain health programs.

The last major prolonged shutdown occurred in late 2018 and early 2019, lasting 35 days—the longest in U.S. history. Beyond the immediate disruption, it cost the economy billions of dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office, due to lost productivity and delayed federal spending.

Lawmakers from both parties say they intend to avoid a repeat of such turmoil, but deep divides over budget priorities, defense spending, and policy riders—including those tied to border security and immigration—could make finding common ground difficult. Khanna’s comments add another layer of uncertainty to already tense negotiations.

---

Economic Impact of Potential Shutdown

Should Democrats heed Khanna’s call, the ripple effects of even a short-term shutdown would be felt nationwide.

• Federal Workers and Contractors: Hundreds of thousands of workers face furloughs, and contractors often go unpaid, creating sudden financial strain.
• Public Assistance Programs: While Social Security and Medicare continue, other services such as WIC and certain housing assistance programs can experience delays.
• Air Travel and Infrastructure: Previous shutdowns have strained airport security and air traffic control, increasing delays and traveler frustration.
• Local Economies in D.C. and Beyond: The Washington region, heavily reliant on federal employment, is particularly vulnerable, though ripple effects extend nationally as federal agencies pause operations.

Each shutdown also damages the government’s reputation and credibility, raising public frustration with what is often viewed as political gamesmanship.

---

Historical Context: Shutdowns as Political Leverage

Government shutdowns have long been used as political bargaining tools by both major parties. The 1995-96 shutdowns under President Bill Clinton resulted from skirmishes with the Republican-controlled Congress over budget priorities. More recently, the 2013 shutdown under President Barack Obama centered on opposition to the Affordable Care Act. The 2018-2019 episode under President Donald Trump revolved around border wall funding.

In nearly every case, shutdowns have carried significant political risk, with public opinion often turning against the party perceived as instigating the crisis. Khanna’s call for Democrats to consider this strategy therefore marks a bold and potentially risky stance, given the historical pattern of public backlash.

---

Comparisons with Other Capitals and Security Approaches

The debate over the National Guard presence in Washington also invites comparisons with other global capitals. Cities such as London, Paris, and Berlin have expanded visible security in response to terrorism or civil unrest but generally rely on police forces rather than military deployments. The sight of troops in full uniform patrolling of a democratic capital like Washington has therefore struck a symbolic chord, viewed by some as an aberration in a country that historically separates civil authority from military presence.

Khanna’s demand reflects a broader question about how the United States should manage security in its capital—whether extraordinary measures should be normalized or whether democratic traditions should dictate a return to standard policing.

---

Public and Political Reaction

Khanna’s remarks have sparked differing reactions across the political spectrum. Some progressive activists praised his call for Democrats to draw firmer lines, seeing it as a necessary corrective to what they perceive as years of incremental concessions. Others, however, warned that risking a shutdown could backfire, alienating independent voters and exposing Democrats to criticism at a time when public trust in government is already fragile.

Senior Democratic leadership has not publicly endorsed Khanna’s stance, reflecting a cautious approach as delicate negotiations unfold. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have seized on the remarks as evidence of Democratic disunity, even as their own caucus remains divided over the scope and content of government funding bills.

---

The Path Forward

As September 30 approaches, the battle lines are becoming sharper. With government funding, immigration enforcement, and security in Washington all intertwined in the negotiations, the outcome will hinge on whether compromise is achievable—or whether lawmakers are willing to gamble with a shutdown.

Representative Khanna’s intervention ensures that Democrats face not only external pressure from Republicans but also internal debates over strategy and resolve. The coming weeks will test whether his call for standing firm becomes a rallying cry within the party or a solitary warning drowned out by the urgency to keep the government running.

---

Conclusion

The debate surrounding Representative Ro Khanna’s call to tie government funding to the withdrawal of the National Guard highlights the multifaceted nature of American politics at this moment: immigration, security, economic stability, and party unity all converge in a single high-stakes negotiation. Whether Democrats heed Khanna’s advice or chart a more cautious path may shape not only the immediate outcome of the funding battle but also the broader trajectory of the party’s negotiating posture for the remainder of the year.

As history has shown, government shutdowns are blunt instruments of political leverage—but they remain powerful, risky tools. The coming weeks will reveal whether Khanna’s warning serves as a turning point or simply another burst of frustration in the long, fraught history of budget showdowns in Washington.