How did the July 2025 leadership decisions affect asylum or national security cases like Rhamanullah’s?
Executive summary
July 2025 policy moves tightened fees, paused some services and set the stage for broader asylum restrictions that later became the basis for post‑November security reviews; USCIS began requiring an Annual Asylum Fee for pending I‑589 filers on July 22, 2025 [1], and Congressional reconciliation and funding choices in July reduced safety‑net supports and ramped enforcement resources [2]. The immediate operational consequence was slower processing and postponed non‑detained hearings during the 2025 shutdown, increasing backlogs and uncertainty for asylum applicants [3].
1. July moves were administrative, financial and legislative — not a single “decision”
In July 2025 the asylum landscape shifted through several discrete actions: USCIS issued notices implementing a new Annual Asylum Fee tied to HR‑1 reconciliation provisions (AAF notice, July 22, 2025) that required payment from people with pending Form I‑589s [1]; Congress passed reconciliation language and funding packages that increased enforcement funding and cut non‑defense programs, which advocates said would reduce supports for asylees and survivors [2]; and other executive and regulatory resets under the new administration removed tools like CBP One and announced broad entry restrictions earlier in the year [4]. These are cumulative changes rather than a single policy pivot [1] [2] [4].
2. Practical effects: slower processing, postponed hearings, greater uncertainty
Operationally, federal interruptions in 2025 slowed asylum adjudication: USCIS continued to accept affirmative claims but reduced interviews and customer service, and many non‑detained immigration court dockets were postponed while detained hearings were prioritized — worsening backlogs and uncertainty for applicants [3]. The AAF notices introduced in July added a new financial obligation and administrative step for pending applicants, which advocates warned could further complicate access and timeliness [1].
3. Humanitarian and legal backlash from advocacy groups
Advocacy organizations documented immediate harms: July reconciliation measures were criticized for cutting critical safety‑net programs for asylees, refugees and survivors of trafficking or domestic violence, and for creating new financial penalties tied to humanitarian protections [2]. Human Rights Watch framed January–July policy moves as a broad closing of doors for refugees and asylum seekers and an abandonment of longstanding U.S. responsibility‑sharing [5].
4. How those July choices intersected with national‑security reviews after the November shooting
After the November 2025 shooting attributed to Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the administration announced broad reviews of asylum approvals and green cards issued under the prior administration [6] [7]. Those reviews leveraged the new posture established earlier in 2025 — a willingness to use executive and regulatory tools to restrict entry and revisit adjudications — and were framed by officials as necessary for national security [4] [6]. Reuters and other outlets reported the administration would review Biden‑era asylum cases and expand prior refugee reviews [8] [7].
5. The specific case of Rahmanullah: procedural facts, not policy conclusions
Reporting establishes that Rahmanullah Lakanwal arrived under humanitarian parole or evacuation pathways in 2021, applied for asylum in 2024, and was granted asylum in April 2025 [9] [10]. Authorities searched his residence and seized devices as part of the criminal investigation [7]. Sources show the administration’s post‑incident response included announcing a review of asylum approvals; they do not, in the material provided, link his criminal charges to a documented vetting failure by a named agency beyond officials’ public assertions and subsequent administrative reviews [7] [6] [8].
6. Competing narratives and political uses of the July changes
Supporters of the tougher line argue tighter rules, fees and administrative controls are needed to curb “gaming” of asylum and to strengthen national security — a theme echoed in policy proposals and commentary in 2025 [11] [4]. Opponents and human‑rights groups say the same measures strip protections, limit access to counsel or benefits, and push vulnerable people into harm [2] [5]. Both frames appear in the sources: some outlets report that officials blamed prior vetting [7], while advocacy groups warn of legal and humanitarian damage [2].
7. What reporting does not say (limitations)
Available sources do not mention a specific, documented procedural error in Lakanwal’s asylum adjudication that would have predicted the later violence; reporting notes an ongoing criminal probe and administrative reviews but stops short of asserting a vetting failure proved in court [7] [9]. Sources also do not provide definitive statistics tying July fee changes directly to increased denials or deportations in individual cases; they document administrative burdens, slower processing and policy intent [3] [1].
8. Bottom line for asylum‑seekers and national security policy
July 2025 actions — new fees, funding choices and regulatory rollbacks — materially increased friction in the asylum system and created the administrative framework the government later invoked when expanding reviews after the November shooting [1] [2] [6]. Those measures produced slower processing and more uncertainty for applicants [3], and after the Lakanwal attack officials pointed to prior approvals as grounds for sweeping re‑examinations [6]. The sources present both security arguments and humanitarian critiques; neither side has, in the provided reporting, a conclusive public finding tying July administrative decisions to a concrete failure that caused the attack [7] [2].