According to reporting in The Washington Post, however, Lakanwal did undergo vetting before his admission to the United States under Operation Allies Welcome (OAW), the 2021‑era initiative to resettle Afghan nationals after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Sources with direct knowledge of the process said the accused had been screened by U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism agencies prior to arrival, including biographic and biometric checks. Some also noted that Lakanwal had previously worked with CIA‑backed Afghan forces before coming to the U.S.
Despite these confirmations, senior officials aligned with the Trump administration — including the director of the National Counterterrorism Center and other high‑level figures — publicly claimed Lakanwal “was not vetted” for entry as a civilian, but only under a military or wartime screening process in Afghanistan. Press statements and social‑media messages described the vetting process used in 2021 as minimal, arguing that the mass evacuation allowed many Afghans to enter with insufficient scrutiny. This version of events triggered a political backlash and fueled demands for sweeping reviews of immigration from Afghanistan, as well as an immediate halting of ongoing Afghan visa and asylum processing under OAW.
This contradiction between what some officials claim and what investigative reporting reveals underscores a deeper problem: conflicting narratives about vetting and the safety of immigration pathways. Supporters of Afghan resettlement argue that OAW included rigorous screening by multiple agencies — including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S. homeland‑security agencies — and that Lakanwal passed those checks before resettlement. Even after arrival, evacuees were subject to parole‑related monitoring, medical screenings, and additional vetting if they later applied for asylum or permanent status.
At the same time, experts and watchdogs have noted that the 2021 evacuation presented “unprecedented challenges” — the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, a huge inflow of evacuees, and limited time for interviews and background checks created real logistical constraints. But even in that context, available evidence suggests Lakanwal was processed through standard vetting channels, contrary to claims he entered “unvetted.” The discrepancy seems to stem not from a lack of records but from public messaging: some officials appear to be amplifying the narrative of a vetting failure to emphasize policy points about immigration and national security.
What emerges, therefore, is a story mired in uncertainty, conflicting claims, and political pressure. The Nov. 2025 shooting in Washington, D.C., is real — the suspect has been identified, charged, and accused of a deadly ambush.But the claim that he entered the United States without vetting appears to be false or at least unsubstantiated, according to investigative reporting. The incident has nevertheless reignited intense scrutiny of Afghan‑resettlement and asylum policies, prompting immediate administrative responses and rollback of visa processing. Whether the shooting will result in structural policy changes remains uncertain — but for now, the facts suggest that this was not a case of someone “slipping through the cracks,” but rather a failure or break in later stages: detection, monitoring, or post‑arrival oversight.
