Yes: Claim that an Afghani attacker of National Guard soldiers was in the U.S. illegally due to Biden and not influenced by “Seditious 6” propaganda
Executive summary
Officials and major outlets report the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan who entered the United States in 2021 under the post‑withdrawal evacuation programs and later received asylum in April 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Authorities and senior officials disagree on motive: the Biden-era evacuation has been blamed by some politicians, while federal investigators and Homeland Security say Lakanwal likely became radicalized after arriving in the U.S. and that his case included prior vetting [4] [5] [6].
1. What the records say about his immigration status
News organizations and officials consistently report that Lakanwal came to the U.S. in 2021 through the evacuation efforts after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and that he later received asylum or humanitarian parole, with some reporting asylum was granted in April 2025 [7] [3] [1]. FactCheck.org notes that despite political claims the suspect was “unvetted,” reporting shows he underwent vetting multiple times both overseas and in the U.S. as part of standard processes for evacuees and asylum applicants [4].
2. Claims blaming “Biden” or policy failures — what the sources actually support
Political leaders including President Trump and some Republican officials have publicly blamed the Biden administration’s evacuation or vetting processes and called for broad deportations or reviews of Afghan arrivals [1] [7] [2]. FactCheck.org reports those claims surfaced immediately after the attack but also documents reporting that the suspect had been vetted multiple times — a factual detail that undercuts a simple “let them in unvetted” narrative [4]. Available sources do not say vetting was entirely absent; they say vetting occurred [4].
3. Evidence on motive and radicalization — competing official views
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other officials have said investigators believe Lakanwal was radicalized after arriving in the U.S., which implies domestic rather than pre‑arrival influence [5]. Some outlets report prosecutors and law enforcement are still investigating possible ties to extremist groups and are probing his activities in the U.S. [8]. Reporting by NPR, The Guardian and Reuters emphasizes the suspect’s documented struggles with mental health and isolation after resettlement, and activists describe the attack as an isolated incident rather than proof of a systemic failure [9] [6] [5]. Those are different explanations that are not mutually exclusive in the reporting: investigators are still establishing motive [6] [5].
4. The “Seditious 6” or specific propaganda influence — what is and isn’t in the record
The provided sources do not mention any group called the “Seditious 6” or link Lakanwal to that specific propaganda stream; therefore, claims about influence by a group with that name are not found in current reporting. Existing reporting focuses on possible domestic radicalization pathways generally and on his personal isolation and mental‑health decline after arrival [6] [9] [5]. If you are seeing a claim tying this attacker specifically to “Seditious 6,” available sources do not mention that connection.
5. Background that changes the frame: his prior work with U.S. forces
Multiple outlets report Lakanwal previously served in an Afghan special unit that worked with U.S. forces and had CIA support or partnership — a fact that complicates simple “unvetted foreign attacker” narratives because it shows prior contact and vetting linked to U.S. authorities [1] [10] [3]. FactCheck.org and others note directors and intelligence officials have confirmed his work with partner forces in Afghanistan [4] [10]. That record has been cited by both critics and defenders of the evacuation programs to support competing political claims [1] [10].
6. Immediate policy fallout and political uses of the incident
After the attack the Trump administration announced sharper immigration reviews and paused or froze some refugee processes involving Afghans; local enforcement and federal actions also increased arrests of Afghans in some jurisdictions, according to reporting [7] [11]. Political actors have used the event to press preexisting agendas on immigration, vetting and national security; outlets document those partisan responses alongside investigative statements from law enforcement [1] [7] [2].
7. What remains unresolved and what to watch next
Investigations into motive, foreign or domestic radicalization pathways, and any undisclosed contacts are ongoing; several sources stress law enforcement has not yet concluded why Lakanwal committed the attack [6] [5] [8]. Watch for FBI and prosecutor briefings about discovered communications, social‑media ties or organizational links, and for formal findings about the thoroughness and results of his prior vetting — those items are the decisive facts reporters and analysts cite [4] [5].
Limitations: reporting is still unfolding and sources disagree about motive, timing of radicalization and the political meaning of his immigration history; I used only the provided sources and they do not mention any link to a group named “Seditious 6” [9] [6] [5].