Was murderer of gaurd member vetted by trump admin
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the accused shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, entered the U.S. in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, applied for asylum in December 2024 and was granted asylum on April 23, 2025 — after President Trump took office — and U.S. officials say he had been vetted previously for work with U.S. partners in Afghanistan and again during immigration processes [1] [2] [3]. The Trump administration publicly blamed prior (Biden-era) vetting failures, while multiple outlets and officials report Lakanwal underwent several vetting steps both as a U.S. partner overseas and later when seeking asylum [2] [4] [1].
1. Who the accused is and when he arrived
Rahmanullah Lakanwal is a 29-year-old Afghan national identified by law enforcement as the suspect in the November 26, 2025, shooting of two National Guard members near the White House; reporting says he came to the United States in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome and later applied for asylum in December 2024 [1] [4]. Multiple outlets note his asylum approval formally occurred on April 23, 2025 — after the Trump administration took office — even though his initial entry to the U.S. was under the Biden-era evacuation program [2] [3].
2. What “vetting” has been reported about him
News organizations report that Lakanwal was vetted on multiple occasions: while he worked with U.S. government partners (including CIA work reported in some outlets), during overseas screening for evacuation programs, and again during his asylum application — with some officials saying no disqualifying information was found [2] [1] [3]. Commentators and former officials quoted by media say he was among Afghans who underwent extensive vetting to serve alongside U.S. forces and would have been screened again for asylum [4] [1].
3. The Trump administration’s public claim and response
After the shooting, Trump and senior administration officials framed the attack as a consequence of “Biden-era” vetting failures and ordered reviews and pauses of asylum decisions and Afghan visa issuance, while USCIS announced stricter country-specific vetting guidance and a pause on asylum decisions [3] [5] [6]. The administration cited the fact Lakanwal’s asylum was approved in April 2025 as a political point even as it moved to tighten screening and pause related immigration processes [2] [5].
4. Pushback and alternative perspectives in coverage
Several outlets and officials dispute the claim that Lakanwal was unvetted. NBC, CNN, PBS and other reporting say the Trump administration has not produced evidence that basic vetting was skipped, and some national-security commentators note Lakanwal was “extensively vetted” for his work with U.S. partners and would have faced additional screening when applying for asylum [7] [1] [4]. Analysts quoted in coverage argue investigators have not yet tied the tragedy to obvious vetting failures and caution against drawing policy conclusions before investigations conclude [8] [4].
5. What changes the Trump administration implemented or announced
USCIS issued new guidance allowing negative, country-specific factors to be used in vetting applicants from 19 high-risk countries and said those rules apply immediately to new or pending requests; the administration also halted asylum decisions and paused Afghan passport visa issuance while it reviews procedures [6] [5]. Officials framed these moves as an effort to “ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible” [6] [5].
6. What the available sources do not settle
Available sources do not mention definitive evidence that vetting failures directly enabled this attacker to enter the U.S., nor do they provide a final investigative conclusion tying the shooting to specific gaps in the screening system [2] [4]. Reporting shows disagreement among officials and analysts about whether existing vetting was adequate; some administration figures assert failures, while others and several journalists note multiple prior vetting steps and say proof of a systemic lapse has not been presented [3] [7] [8].
7. Why this matters and the political stakes
Coverage treats the incident as both a criminal investigation and an immediate political flashpoint: the event has been used to justify swift immigration-policy shifts and to spotlight long-standing partisan disputes about Afghan evacuations and vetting standards — an outcome noted explicitly in multiple pieces as the administration moves to tighten rules and reexamine past approvals [5] [6] [9]. Sources also show advocacy groups warn of collective punishments for refugee communities, while supporters of the policy changes argue public safety demands a tougher approach [5] [10].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the cited news reporting; the criminal investigation and immigration file reviews are ongoing and available sources do not include any final official finding that vetting caused the attack [2] [4].