What is the latest official update on the condition and fatalities of those National Guard members?
Executive summary
Officials say two West Virginia National Guard members shot near the White House on Nov. 26, 2025 were hospitalized in critical condition; several federal and local spokespeople — including FBI Director Kash Patel and Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser — made that assertion publicly [1] [2]. Conflicting early statements came from West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey, who initially posted that both had died then walked that back, saying his office was receiving “conflicting reports” [3] [4].
1. What officials have said: “Critical condition” is the consistent official line
Multiple federal and local officials repeatedly described the two injured Guardsmen as in “critical condition” at local hospitals; that language appears across reporting from the FBI director’s comments to city and national outlets [1] [2] [5]. Local leaders and law enforcement framed the incident as a “targeted” attack, and the immediate medical status reported by authorities was critical rather than deceased [6] [7].
2. Conflicting messaging and the governor’s reversal
West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey posted an initial message saying the two troops had died, then quickly retracted or modified that claim, acknowledging his office was receiving conflicting information about their condition [3] [4]. News outlets documented both the initial, unconfirmed post of deaths and the subsequent backtracking; this sequence fueled confusion in early coverage [8].
3. How mainstream outlets covered the status — broad agreement on critical status
Major U.S. outlets — including The New York Times, CNN, NBC, Fox, AP-republishers and national wire reports — reported the Guard members as critically wounded and hospitalized based on law-enforcement briefings and the FBI director’s statement [1] [5] [6] [9] [10]. The consistency across these outlets indicates a convergence on the official, on-the-record assessment even while noting the governor’s conflicting post [11] [2].
4. What we do not see in the available reporting: confirmed fatalities or later status updates
Available sources do not mention any later, authoritative confirmation that the Guardsmen died; the corpus you provided contains the initial confusion but otherwise sustains the “critical condition” updates from federal and local officials [3] [2]. If subsequent developments (improvements, deaths, or more detailed medical updates) occurred after these stories, they are not present in the materials supplied for this query.
5. Context: scene, suspect and federal response tied to the medical updates
Reporting places the shooting one to two blocks from the White House, describes the event as apparently targeted, and says a suspect was detained and also taken to hospital with wounds not believed to be life‑threatening — details often mentioned alongside the Guardsmen’s condition [6] [10] [12]. The shooting prompted an immediate federal response, including public statements and an order to send additional National Guard forces to Washington, underscoring the national-security and operational context that elevated every medical-status update [11] [10].
6. Why early contradictions happen and what readers should watch for next
Fast-moving crises frequently produce premature or unverified social-media posts from public officials; the governor’s initial declaration of deaths and its quick walkback illustrate how initial information can conflict with later, verified briefings [3] [8]. Readers should look for formal hospital confirmations, family statements, or later law-enforcement briefings for authoritative changes to the Guardsmen’s status — none of which are present in the current set of articles [5] [2].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas to note
News outlets largely repeated official briefings rather than independently verifying medical records; that creates dependence on law-enforcement and hospital spokespeople for casualty information [1] [5]. Political actors’ statements — including the governor’s initial post and subsequent retraction — may reflect the pressure to communicate quickly in a politically sensitive incident; outlets flagged those discrepancies rather than endorsing the initial claim [3] [8].
Conclusion — the best-supported update in the available reporting is that both West Virginia National Guard members remained hospitalized in critical condition as of the briefings cited; the one prominent counterclaim (the governor’s initial post that they had died) was retracted and described by his office as conflicting with other reports [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention later confirmed fatalities or post-hospital outcomes.