Following the ambush of two National Guard members near the White House, a former FBI special agent has called the vetting process for Afghan evacuees during the 2021 withdrawal a “free-for-all.” The incident has intensified bipartisan scrutiny over the security risks associated with the rapid evacuation of thousands of Afghans, with former FBI agent Nicole Parker accusing the Biden administration of allowing unvetted individuals into the U.S. The State Department allegedly overrode security concerns, leading to incomplete vetting and potential national security threats.
The ambush, which left the National Guard members in critical condition, has reignited calls for accountability over the vetting of Afghan evacuees. Parker, who worked with the FBI during the evacuation, described the process as chaotic and poorly managed. She revealed that FBI agents and Department of Defense contractors were tasked with screening Afghans, but the State Department frequently ignored security red flags. “There were individuals that were not being recommended to come to the United States, yet they were being overridden by the Biden State Department,” Parker said.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) both reported that hundreds of Afghan evacuees entered the U.S. with derogatory information that should have raised red flags. The OIG audit also found that the “lily pad” system, where thousands of evacuees were temporarily housed in countries like Germany, Qatar, Spain, and Italy, was rushed, understaffed, and inconsistent. These temporary bases were meant to provide short-term shelter while U.S. officials processed their cases, but the process led to major documentation gaps, missing records, and vetting shortcuts.
A former FBI agent who worked on the vetting process told Fox News Digital that it was almost impossible to vet evacuees because many arrived with no verifiable documents or records, leaving nothing to run through intelligence or criminal databases. The National Guard members who were ambushed are in critical condition, highlighting the risks of inadequate vetting. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro condemned the vetting process that allowed the alleged shooter into the U.S., calling it “absurd” and a direct result of the administration’s failure to properly vet individuals. FBI Director Kash Patel echoed these concerns, linking the incident to the “disastrous withdrawal” and the lack of vetting for thousands of evacuees.
Despite claims by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that most evacuees were vetted, the inspector general report revealed that over 200 evacuees had “potentially serious security concerns.” Some of these individuals were not tracked down, raising further questions about the effectiveness of the vetting process. The incident underscores mounting pressure on the Biden administration to address the security risks posed by the rushed evacuation and the potential long-term consequences of inadequate vetting.
In a 2021 Senate hearing, Mayorkas insisted that “well over 99 percent” of evacuees were screened and vetted before boarding flights. However, under questioning, he admitted that he could not guarantee that standard applied in every case. He also claimed that any evacuees who failed screening were “screened and vetted while in flight and were placed in immigration enforcement proceedings and in removal proceedings” if any derogatory information was deduced. When further pressed, he said, “No. No, I can’t speak to that.” This admission has fueled further controversy over the transparency of the vetting process.
The National Guard members who were ambushed remain in critical condition, and their attackers, including the suspected shooter Rahmanullah Lakanwal, were reportedly living in Washington state with his wife and five children before driving cross-country to reach the nation’s capital. Pirro argued that the vetting process was so lax that individuals with known ties to extremist groups were allowed to enter the U.S. and were “released into this country” without proper scrutiny.
The incident has sparked a heated debate over the balance between humanitarian aid and national security. While the administration hailed the evacuation as a humanitarian effort, critics argue that the rapid pace of the process left critical gaps in vetting. Jason Pack, CEO of Media Rep Global Strategies, acknowledged that the evacuation was a “massive humanitarian operation” but warned that it carried unavoidable risks. “Cases like this force investigators to go back and examine those files with fresh eyes,” Pack said, emphasizing the need for a more thorough investigation into the vetting process.
As the investigation into the ambush continues, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of international evacuation efforts and the potential long-term consequences of inadequate vetting. The controversy over the Afghan evacuation has already led to significant political fallout, with bipartisan calls for accountability and reform. Analysts warn that the incident could have long-term implications for U.S. national security policy, particularly in the context of managing international evacuations and vetting processes in the future.