Echoes of 1933: The National Guard Shooting and the Specter of Emergency Powers

In the lexicon of political warnings, few historical analogies carry the weight of the Reichstag fire. The 1933 arson attack on the German parliament building remains the archetypal example of a "false flag" or exploited crisis—a violent event used by an authoritarian leader to manufacture consent for the suspension of civil liberties.

Following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., on November 26, 2025, this analogy has re-emerged with urgent intensity. Critics and political analysts argue that President Donald Trump is utilizing this act of violence in a manner strikingly similar to how Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag fire: as a pretext to consolidate federal control, vilify a specific class of people, and justify a state of de facto martial law in the nation’s capital.

To understand the comparison, one must first understand the mechanism of the Reichstag event. On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire. While the act was committed by a lone Dutch council communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, Hitler and the Nazi Party immediately framed it as the signal for a massive Communist uprising.

This narrative allowed Hitler to persuade President Paul von Hindenburg to sign the "Reichstag Fire Decree" the very next day. The decree suspended key civil liberties—including habeas corpus, freedom of expression, and the right to assembly—and allowed the central government to seize control of state governments if they failed to maintain order. The fire was the catalyst that transformed a fragile democracy into a dictatorship under the guise of "protecting the people and state."

The parallels to the current situation in Washington, D.C., rest on three pillars: the scapegoating of a target group, the militarization of domestic space, and the suspension of local governance.

The first parallel lies in the weaponization of the perpetrator’s identity to justify collective punishment. Just as the Nazis used a single arsonist to justify a crackdown on all Communists and political dissidents, the Trump administration has seized upon the identity of the Washington, D.C. shooter—an Afghan national—to validate a sweeping anti-immigrant agenda.

Within hours of the shooting, the President labeled the event an "act of terror" and called for the immediate re-examination of all Afghan nationals admitted during the previous administration. The rhetoric shifts the focus from an individual criminal act to an existential threat posed by an "enemy within," legitimizing aggressive deportation efforts and heightened surveillance that might otherwise face legal or public resistance.

The second parallel is the use of the crisis to override legal checks on military power. At the time of the shooting, the Trump administration was already embroiled in legal battles over its "Crime Emergency" declaration in the District of Columbia. Critics and local officials had challenged the indefinite deployment of National Guard troops and the federalization of the Metropolitan Police Department as unlawful overreach.

The shooting on November 26 provided the administration with a visceral justification to bypass these objections. By ordering an additional 500 troops to the capital and framing the city as a war zone requiring military occupation, the administration effectively silences judicial and municipal opposition. The argument is simple and historically resonant: the danger is too great for the slow deliberations of democracy; only raw military force can ensure safety.

Finally, the comparison culminates in the concept of martial law. While the administration has not formally uttered the phrase "martial law"—which carries heavy legal and historical baggage—the actions taken under the "Crime Emergency" mirror its effects.

The Reichstag Fire Decree’s most potent clause was the authority to overthrow state and local governments. Similarly, the current federal takeover of D.C.’s law enforcement apparatus strips the locally elected mayor and city council of their authority to police their own streets. By asserting that the local government has failed to control crime, the federal executive has assumed direct control, patrolling American streets with uniformed soldiers.

For the residents of Washington, D.C., living under military patrols and federal curfews, the distinction between a "Crime Emergency" and martial law is largely semantic.

The shooting of the National Guard members is a tragedy, but in the realm of political maneuvering, it is also an opportunity. The Reichstag fire demonstrated that a frightened populace is often willing to trade liberty for the promise of order.

By framing the shooting not as a crime to be solved, but as a terror campaign to be crushed, President Trump is employing a time-tested strategy: using the ashes of a crisis to build the foundation of unchecked executive power.

The comparison to 1933 serves not just as a historical critique, but as a warning that the machinery of authoritarianism is often built in the name of public safety.