We do not want them. None.
A National Guard agent was killed and another gravely wounded in a shooting near the White House last week, attributed to a 29-year-old Afghan immigrant. The suspect had worked for the CIA and US Army in Kabul and was granted asylum in 2024 after arriving in September 2021 during the Afghanistan withdrawal.
- One National Guard agent killed, another critically wounded in shooting near White House on Wednesday, December 26
- Suspect: Rahmanulah Lakanwal, 29, Afghan immigrant who worked for CIA and U.S. Army in Kabul
- Lakanwal arrived in U.S. September 2021, filed asylum petition 2024, approved April 2025
- Trump administration reviewing green cards from 19 countries and suspending migration from 'Third World' countries
- Approximately 2,200 National Guard troops deployed to Washington D.C. as of the shooting date
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem requested a total travel ban from countries she claims have sent criminals to the US, following a shooting near the White House that killed a National Guard agent. The incident involved an Afghan immigrant with prior US military ties.
A shooting near the White House last Wednesday left one National Guard agent dead and another critically wounded. The suspect was a 29-year-old Afghan immigrant named Rahmanulah Lakanwal, who had worked as a partner force member for both the CIA and the U.S. Army during the occupation of Kabul. The incident triggered an immediate policy response from the Trump administration, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling for sweeping restrictions on immigration.
Noem announced her recommendation on Monday, December 1st, in a post on X, demanding what she termed a "total travel ban" from countries she accused of sending "murderers, parasites, and entitlement addicts" to the United States. Her language was unsparing. She invoked the nation's founding generation and their sacrifice, framing immigration as a betrayal of that legacy. "Our ancestors built this nation with blood, sweat, and an unwavering love of freedom—not so that foreign invaders could massacre our heroes, drain our hard-earned taxes, or steal benefits owed to Americans," she wrote. "We do not want them. None."
The shooting itself occurred on a Wednesday, but the policy escalation had already begun. Trump had ordered a sweeping review of green cards issued to citizens of 19 countries, a list compiled by Joe Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, based on what officials called "countries of special concern." The list included Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, Cuba, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen.
Lakanwal's background complicated the narrative of foreign threat. He had arrived in the United States in September 2021, during the chaotic final days of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan. His asylum petition was filed in 2024 and approved in April 2025. According to CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Lakanwal's asylum was granted specifically because of his service alongside American forces in Kabul. He was, in other words, someone the U.S. government had actively recruited and protected during the transition.
The administration's response moved with speed. Trump had already blocked indefinitely the processing of all immigration applications from Afghan citizens. On Friday, December 28th, he announced a permanent suspension of migration from what he called "Third World countries" to the United States. The Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, requested an additional 500 National Guard members be deployed to Washington, framing the measure as necessary to ensure the capital remained "a safe and beautiful place." By Wednesday, the day of the shooting, approximately 2,200 National Guard troops were already patrolling the capital—members from Washington D.C. itself, as well as from Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama. This deployment had been authorized by Trump in August through an emergency order that federalized local police forces.
The shooting and the policy response unfolded against a backdrop of escalating security measures that had been building for months. The incident provided the administration with a concrete event around which to organize its immigration agenda, even as the shooter's own history—as someone who had worked for American intelligence and military—suggested the complexity of the security challenge was not easily resolved by travel bans or green card reviews.
Citações Notáveis
Our ancestors built this nation with blood, sweat, and an unwavering love of freedom—not so that foreign invaders could massacre our heroes, drain our hard-earned taxes, or steal benefits owed to Americans.— DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, on X
Lakanwal's asylum was granted specifically because of his service alongside American forces in Kabul.— CIA Director John Ratcliffe
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did this particular shooting trigger such a sweeping policy response? Wasn't there already a security apparatus in place?
The shooting gave the administration a concrete incident to point to. But more than that, it happened near the White House itself—the symbolic center of power. That proximity mattered politically. It made the threat feel immediate and undeniable.
But the suspect had actually worked for the CIA and the Army. He wasn't an unknown quantity.
That's the contradiction at the heart of this. He was vetted, approved, and brought into the country because he had served alongside American forces. The asylum system worked as designed. Yet he still carried out the attack. It suggests the problem isn't simply about who gets in, but about what happens after they arrive.
So the travel ban addresses a symptom rather than the root cause?
Precisely. A travel ban prevents future arrivals from certain countries, but it doesn't address the question of how to monitor or support people already here. It's a blunt instrument applied to a more intricate problem.
Why invoke the founding generation in this context? What does that rhetoric accomplish?
It frames immigration as a betrayal of national sacrifice rather than a policy question. It transforms a security debate into a moral one—us versus them, heritage versus invasion. It makes compromise harder because you're not negotiating policy; you're defending the nation's soul.
And the 2,200 National Guard troops already in Washington—did they prevent this attack?
No. Which raises the question of what security measure actually would have. The troops were there. The suspect still acted. That gap between presence and prevention is what the administration is trying to close with these bans.