Afghan Refugee Suspected in Shooting of National Guard Members

The shooting of two National Guard personnel in Washington, D.C., allegedly by Afghan refugee Rahmanullah Lakanwal, has reignited discussions regarding the vetting process of Afghan refugees resettled in the United States. This incident raises critical questions about the Biden administration’s program that facilitated the arrival of approximately 76,000 Afghan refugees in 2021, many of whom had collaborated with U.S. forces during the two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan.

Lakanwal reportedly entered the United States in 2021 and was among the roughly 3,300 refugees who received a “special immigrant visa” due to his work with the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. agencies. Following his arrival, he applied for asylum in 2024 and was granted asylum in April 2025 under former President Donald Trump.

The FBI has stated that the suspect drove across the country with the intention of targeting National Guard members, prompting scrutiny of the vetting process he underwent. In a news conference, Kash Patel, the FBI Director, claimed that the Biden administration conducted “absolutely zero vetting” of Afghan refugees. This assertion has faced criticism, as it remains unclear how detailed the vetting process was for Lakanwal and others during the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The former CIA Director John Ratcliffe noted that anyone working with the agency during the conflict would have likely undergone some form of vetting. He suggested that Lakanwal’s background would have been scrutinized both upon entering the U.S. and when applying for asylum this year. Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, indicated that about 8,000 individuals have been admitted since Trump took office, with claims of thorough scrutiny by the administration.

In 2021, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas asserted that all Afghan evacuees underwent a “rigorous and multi-layered screening and vetting process.” This included both biometric and biographic assessments by various federal agencies focusing on intelligence, law enforcement, and counterterrorism. However, the speed at which these refugees were settled raises concerns about the effectiveness of these measures, particularly in light of the tumultuous evacuation following the Taliban’s resurgence.

Reports from sources, including the New York Times, have highlighted the challenges associated with resettling Afghan refugees, noting that the process was often marred by logistical issues, such as incomplete flight manifests and a lack of comprehensive demographic data. Critics have pointed to the rapid resettlement as a potential security risk, with some conservative voices arguing that not all individuals who assisted U.S. forces can be viewed as safe to bring to the United States.

While the Biden administration has defended its actions as a moral necessity, advocacy groups like AfghanEvac emphasize that the vetting process for Afghan refugees is among the most rigorous of any population in the U.S.

“This individual’s isolated and violent act should not be used as an excuse to define or diminish an entire community,”

stated Shawn VanDiver, President of AfghanEvac.

The implications of this incident resonate beyond the immediate tragedy, highlighting ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy and national security as the U.S. grapples with how to support those who risked their lives to assist American forces while ensuring the safety of its citizens. As investigations continue, the focus remains on reevaluating the processes that govern refugee admissions and the complexities inherent in crisis-driven resettlement efforts.