The debate over national security and immigration intensified this week after an Afghan national—brought into the country under President Biden’s rushed 2021 evacuation—allegedly opened fire on two National Guardsmen in Washington, DC. While many Americans are asking how such an oversight could happen in the first place, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Editorial Board moved quickly to defend the broader group of Afghan refugees, writing that they “shouldn’t be blamed for the violent act of one man.” Their response underscored a familiar divide: everyday Americans worry about security and accountability while political and media institutions often shift the focus away from policy failures that allowed dangerous individuals to slip through the cracks.
The suspect, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, arrived in the United States as part of Operation Allies Welcome—a program launched after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan that moved tens of thousands of people into American communities with unprecedented speed. After the attack, President Donald Trump announced that his administration would “reexamine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan” under Biden. Within hours, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services halted immigration requests from Afghan nationals “pending further review of security and vetting protocols,” signaling just how serious the lapses may have been. For many, this scrutiny is long overdue. The Afghanistan evacuation has been plagued by reports of poor documentation, missing records, and individuals admitted without completing standard security checks—an extraordinary breach of basic national security norms.
Still, the WSJ Editorial Board cautioned against broader accountability measures. They argued, “President Trump immediately linked the shooting to Joe Biden’s Afghan debacle, and officials were quick to denounce the lack of adequate vetting in the evacuation rush of 2021. When and how the shooter was approved for entry will become clearer, and no doubt an orderly withdrawal would have allowed more careful investigation. This is one more cost of the Biden Administration’s Afghan failure.” Yet the board also warned that vetting can never be perfect and suggested the attacker “may have become radicalized in the U.S.” They continued: “Some will say this means the U.S. should never admit such refugees, but the alternative is abandoning allies who assist Americans in war to the retribution of our enemies. The fate of Afghans, men and women, who worked with the U.S. has often been brutal. You can be sure Americans will fight overseas again, and our troops will need allies on the ground to succeed. How many will assist us if they believe there will be no exit for them if the U.S. leaves with the enemy triumphant?”
The board concluded, “It would be a shame if this single act of betrayal became the excuse for deporting all Afghan refugees in the U.S. Tens of thousands are building new lives here in peace and are contributing to their communities. They shouldn’t be blamed for the violent act of one man. Collective punishment of all Afghans in the U.S. won’t make America safer and it might embitter more against the United States.” Their message highlights a concern about alienating potential allies abroad—but it sidesteps the pressing issue for Americans at home: securing the border, enforcing standards, and preventing preventable tragedies committed by individuals waved through an overwhelmed and politically driven vetting system.
That concern is not hypothetical. As Breitbart’s John Binder documented, whistleblowers and inspectors general have repeatedly warned Congress that the Biden administration failed to properly vet large numbers of Afghan arrivals. A 2022 Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report revealed that Afghans were brought into the country who were “not fully vetted” and could “pose a risk to national security.” That same year, a Department of Defense IG report flagged roughly 50 Afghan nationals with “significant security concerns” after resettlement—individuals who never should have been admitted in the first place. These findings have raised alarms among lawmakers and security experts who argue that vetting shortcuts, however politically convenient, carry real consequences.
The country now faces the human cost of those decisions. Two National Guardsmen were shot while serving in the nation’s capital, and a nation still grappling with the fallout of a failed withdrawal is once again reminded that national security begins with firm standards, rigorous vetting, and leaders willing to prioritize the safety of the American people above political narratives. One violent act does not define an entire group—but one violent act made possible by government negligence absolutely demands accountability.
