Have journalists or watchdogs investigated Rahmanullah Lakanwal's U.S. screening or resettlement?
Executive summary
Journalists and watchdogs have actively investigated Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s U.S. screening, vetting and resettlement, producing reporting that documents he entered the U.S. in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome and underwent multiple agency reviews — but outlets disagree about whether the process was sufficient or whether later approvals (including an asylum grant in April 2025) represent a failure [1] [2]. Major outlets (Washington Post, CBS, Reuters, BBC, ABC, NPR, CNN) have described the vetting steps, local resettlement details and subsequent scrutiny by federal officials; conservative officials have used the case to demand broader reviews of Afghan arrivals [3] [2] [1] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. What reporting has established about how he came to the U.S.
Multiple national outlets report that Lakanwal arrived in the United States in September 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome — the large evacuation and resettlement program for Afghans — initially on humanitarian parole and later applying for asylum; Reuters and CBS note he resettled in Washington state as part of that process [1] [2]. Local reporting adds that resettlement agencies handled his placement in Bellingham and that organizations assisted many evacuees there [9].
2. Journalists’ accounts of the vetting and interagency screening
News organizations detail that Lakanwal underwent biometric checks and interagency vetting tied to CIA and counterterrorism reviews before entry and were later re-examined during his asylum adjudication, with some outlets explicitly reporting multiple-agency scrutiny [10] [3] [1]. The Washington Post and BBC quote sources saying counterterrorism officials vetted him before entry and that independent reviews of the evacuation found no systematic vetting failures, while other outlets note questions raised by officials about whether vetting was adequate [3] [4] [1].
3. Disagreement among sources and political reaction
Reporting shows a clear split: some investigative pieces and officials stress that Lakanwal was vetted repeatedly and that standard procedures were followed (BBC, Washington Post), while political figures and some federal officials have called for re‑interviews and broad reviews of Afghan arrivals from 2021–2025, framing his case as evidence of policy failure [3] [4] [8]. CBS and NBC documented this debate and noted that his asylum approval in April 2025 has been seized on by critics and defenders alike [2] [8].
4. Local investigations and law-enforcement searches
Local press and law-enforcement reporting show active investigations beyond immigration files: the FBI executed search warrants at Lakanwal’s Bellingham residence and seized electronic devices, while local reporters traced his resettlement pathway through community agencies and landlords [9]. National outlets are combining court filings, immigration records and interviews with neighbors and volunteers to build a fuller picture [5] [6].
5. Coverage of his asylum approval and timing
Several outlets report that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved his asylum claim in April 2025, granting protected status and related benefits — a fact cited by both critics who say vetting later failed and by others who argue that the approval followed appropriate legal review [10] [2]. Available sources document the approval but present competing interpretations about its meaning for broader policy [10] [2].
6. Reporting on his prior role with U.S. forces and possible motives
Investigative pieces emphasize Lakanwal’s past as an Afghan who worked with U.S. forces and CIA-backed units; journalists connect that history to both the grounds for his evacuation and to hypotheses about his personal crisis and motivations, including reports of isolation, mental-health decline and the death of an Afghan commander he revered [11] [6] [12]. Outlets use those details to contextualize the human side while noting policy implications [11] [12].
7. What watchdogs have or have not published
Mainstream investigative outlets and watchdog-focused reporting have scrutinized the vetting process, published interviews with resettlement volunteers and cited internal memos and official actions (USCIS pauses, review orders) — but available sources do not mention independent watchdogs releasing formal audits that definitively conclude systemic vetting failure in Lakanwal’s individual case [2] [8] [3]. If you seek a government or NGO audit explicitly stating systemic breakdowns tied to this individual, available sources do not mention such a report [3].
8. What to watch next and reporting limitations
Further reporting is likely from court proceedings, FBI search-warrant returns and any USCIS or DHS reviews; until those records are public, journalists rely on interviews, official briefings and agency statements, which produce competing narratives and political spin [9] [2] [8]. Sources note limitations in reconstructing the full screening record publicly; investigations so far present both evidence of multiagency vetting and persistent disputes over whether policy reforms are warranted [3] [4].
If you want, I can compile the specific articles and timeline of published vetting details and official statements cited above so you can follow primary documents and reporting as the case moves through court and administrative review.