Judge orders Travis Ike force-fed during hunger strike

A federal judge has ordered a man accused of shooting National Guard members near the White House last year—killing one and injuring others—to be force-fed through a feeding tube as he continues a hunger strike in custody.

The accused, 26-year-old Travis Ike, was charged in October 2023 with multiple counts including murder and terrorism after the October 3 shooting outside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a complex adjacent to the White House. Prosecutors allege Ike opened fire with a rifle, targeting members of the D.C. National Guard who were on duty for a protest response. One guard, Specialist Washington, was killed; two others were injured. Ike has been held without bond since his arrest. His case is being heard in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to court documents filed Monday, Ike has refused food since January, alleging mistreatment and demanding better living conditions in prison. His attorney argued that force-feeding constitutes torture and violates medical ethics. But Judge Florence Pan ruled Tuesday that the government has a compelling interest in keeping Ike alive—both to ensure his competency to stand trial and to uphold the justice process—citing the 1947 Supreme Court case *United States v. Holmes*, which allows compelled feeding of hunger strikers in custody. The judge acknowledged ethical concerns but said the need to prevent death outweighs them.

The decision sets a rare legal precedent in a high-profile domestic terrorism case and raises ethical and constitutional questions about the rights of accused individuals to self-determination versus state control. If Ike remains medically unstable, the trial—already delayed multiple times—could face further postponement. Legal experts say the case tests the balance between penal authority and individual bodily autonomy, especially when national security and public safety are invoked. Meanwhile, the D.C. National Guard has not commented publicly since the ruling, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to respond to requests for comment on ongoing procedures.