The Google Trends Spike Before the D.C. Shooting Raises New Questions

A closer look at the data behind Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s name appearing online hours before the attack

There is a new claim circulating about the D.C. National Guardsmen shooting, and it is gaining traction fast. According to posts now being shared across political X, the name of the alleged shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, began spiking on Google Trends in Washington, D.C., hours before the attack took place. The claim suggests possible foreknowledge by unknown actors who searched his name long before the first shot was fired. This deserves careful investigation rather than instant dismissal, because attribution in volatile moments requires precision rather than assumptions.

The screenshots circulating show three distinct spikes in D.C. Google search interest for the name Rahmanullah Lakanwal at approximately 2:24 a.m., 3:28 a.m., and 8:00 a.m. on November 26. The shooting occurred at roughly 2:15 p.m. that afternoon. If these timestamps are accurate, then it means the name of the suspect was searched repeatedly by someone in the District long before the event became public. The claim quickly triggered speculation that there may have been knowledge of the identity of the shooter before the incident occurred. At minimum, it raises the question of whether the data is being interpreted correctly or whether an unrelated pattern was overlaid on a breaking news story.

Google Trends aggregates normalized search interest rather than absolute numbers. A numerical value of 100 reflects peak relative interest within the selected time range and location, not the quantity of searches. It is possible that one or two individuals searching for rare names could generate a visually dramatic spike. This is especially true with uncommon terms, foreign-language names, or queries from institutional networks. However, the fact that the spikes appeared in Washington, D.C. rather than a random assortment of regions does warrant follow-up inquiry, given that federal agencies, journalists, think tanks, and contractors with access to privileged information operate heavily within that geography.

Another claim circulating is that Lakanwal had past ties to U.S.-partnered units in Afghanistan, specifically the Kandahar Strike Force, which was overseen for many years by the CIA. Fox News commentary referenced this connection based on interviews and purported ID records. If confirmed, it raises a separate set of questions unrelated to the Google Trends issue. It would indicate that the suspect was not simply a random asylum seeker but someone who may have interacted with American intelligence structures before resettlement. That possibility cannot be accepted or rejected without official confirmation. It does, however, underline the importance of understanding who issued his approvals, when, and under what conditions.

Public records show that Lakanwal applied for asylum in December 2024 and that the approval occurred in April 2025 during the Trump administration, according to reporting by CNN and immigration case documents confirmed through DHS sources. This places the decision squarely within the current president’s term and contradicts public actors who attempted to attribute the approval to the prior administration. Misattribution during crisis moments is common, but the facts here are straightforward. The approval occurred on Trump’s watch, and his officials oversaw the adjudication.

The central question remains the Google Trends spike. There are several plausible explanations. A social media post containing his name may have circulated before mainstream news outlets picked up the shooting. Early reporters or local community members may have speculated or shared details before verification, which then produced search traffic. Search interest could also have come from internal networks tied to immigration lawyers, former colleagues, or individuals who recognized the name before law enforcement publicly identified the suspect. It is also possible that the Trends data is inaccurate for names with extremely low volume, a known phenomenon in low-frequency datasets.

There is a final possibility that requires careful and responsible handling. If federal agencies, contractors, or analysts had internal information about an individual who was already flagged for risk or previous conduct, the name could theoretically appear in searches prior to an incident coming to light. There is no evidence of this at present, but it is a hypothesis that only subpoenaed logs or investigative reporting could confirm or rule out. The call for IP subpoenas circulating online is premature, but the underlying concern is not unreasonable. Transparency is the only antidote to speculation.

Moments like this are charged. They create openings for opportunists who want to weaponize tragedy for political leverage, and they also expose cracks in the informational ecosystem where genuine anomalies can go unexamined because they are immediately dismissed as a conspiracy. The responsible path is neither panic nor blind acceptance of any claim. It is methodical verification, patient inquiry, and a refusal to let political actors define the narrative through misdirection or deflection.

This story is still unfolding, and the data deserves scrutiny. Readers should expect clarity, not slogans. AllenAnalysis will continue tracking the Google Trends issue, the asylum timeline, and the shooter’s background as more information becomes available. If you value investigations that treat facts with seriousness, subscribe to support the work. Every subscription helps fund the FOIA requests, data verification, and evidence-based reporting required to navigate moments exactly like this one.

Let’s keep going.

WHAT TO READ: