Which country granted asylum to the DC National Guard shooter and when?
Executive summary
Multiple reputable outlets report that the suspected shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is an Afghan national who was granted asylum in the United States in April 2025; he entered the U.S. in September 2021 under the Operation Allies Welcome evacuation program [1] [2] [3]. News organizations including Reuters, BBC, ABC, PBS and The New York Times cite government files or unnamed officials confirming the April 2025 asylum grant [4] [3] [1] [5] [6].
1. What the record says: asylum granted in April 2025
News outlets reporting on the November 2025 Washington, D.C., National Guard shooting uniformly state that Rahmanullah Lakanwal applied for asylum in 2024 and was granted asylum in April 2025. ABC News, BBC, Reuters and The New York Times all report the April 2025 grant, citing law enforcement sources, government files or officials [1] [3] [4] [6]. PBS and NPR likewise describe the timeline of entry under Operation Allies Welcome in 2021 and an asylum approval earlier in 2025 [5] [7].
2. How he came to the U.S.: Operation Allies Welcome, September 2021
Reporting traces Lakanwal’s arrival to September 8, 2021, when he entered under Operation Allies Welcome — the humanitarian parole program used during the U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan. Multiple outlets note that program brought in Afghans who had worked with U.S. forces or were otherwise at risk [2] [8] [4]. Those accounts frame his entry as part of the broader evacuation effort, not a standard immigrant visa process [8].
3. Sources and evidentiary basis: government files and unnamed officials
The April 2025 asylum grant is supported across outlets by either government records reviewed by reporters (Reuters) or anonymous officials with direct knowledge (The New York Times, ABC) [4] [6] [1]. Reuters specifically says a government file reviewed by the agency showed the asylum approval, while The New York Times cites three people with knowledge of the case [4] [6]. Snopes documents how the claim circulated online and notes major outlets reported the April 2025 approval [9].
4. Competing narratives and political reaction
The shooting triggered immediate political responses that amplified the asylum connection: the Trump administration halted asylum decisions and announced a review of cases approved under the prior administration, framing the incident as evidence of vetting failures [5] [10]. President Trump and administration officials used the report of an April 2025 asylum grant to justify pauses and reviews; critics and refugee advocates warned against broad policy rollbacks based on a single case [5] [7].
5. What sources don’t resolve: motive, vetting details, and adjudication specifics
Available sources confirm the asylum grant date but do not provide a full public record of the adjudication file or detailed vetting steps taken in April 2025; where outlets rely on “government files” or anonymous sources, the underlying documents are not reproduced in the reporting cited here [4] [6]. Available sources do not mention granular details such as the adjudicator’s reasoning, background-check records, or whether any appeals or reviews followed the grant [6].
6. On claims and misinformation: what circulated and how it checked out
Social media narratives quickly credited the Trump administration with granting asylum; fact-checkers and mainstream outlets traced the April 2025 grant but emphasized nuance — that Lakanwal entered under humanitarian parole in 2021 and applied for asylum in 2024 before approval in April 2025 — and that reporting often relied on reviewed files or unnamed officials [9] [2] [1]. Snopes notes the claim circulated widely and that major outlets corroborated the April 2025 timing [9].
7. Why the timing matters politically and legally
The April 2025 asylum approval became a focal point for immediate policy actions: the administration paused asylum decisions and launched reviews of previously approved cases, citing security concerns tied to this shooting [10] [5]. That political linkage is explicit in the coverage: officials used the reported asylum grant as evidence to justify sweeping procedural changes even though reporters also highlight that the case’s full factual and psychological context is still under investigation [5] [7].
Limitations: all factual assertions above are drawn from the provided sources; where public records or full adjudication files are not reproduced in those reports, those specifics are not available in current reporting [4] [6].