When I first heard about the shooting involving two National Guard members last week, I knew immediately that it would ignite a new wave of debates in Washington. And I was right. The incident, carried out by an Afghan national who had been granted asylum, instantly became the catalyst for a much broader conversation about how the United States screens and admits migrants and asylum seekers.
As I watch lawmakers and officials react, it’s clear to me that many of them see this moment as an opportunity to push for deeper, stricter, and far more aggressive vetting procedures than anything we’ve seen in recent years.
Some of the proposals I’m seeing include mandatory in-person interviews for asylum applicants, mass deportations of individuals who entered the country under what officials describe as insufficient Biden-era vetting, and a much tougher set of background checks aimed at detecting any potential ties to extremist or terrorist groups. Several lawmakers have openly referred to this moment as an “inflection point,” and honestly, it feels like one.
I’ve also watched calls from Capitol Hill to restore post-9/11 style vetting standards — procedures specifically designed to dig far deeper into each applicant’s background. Senator Josh Hawley has been especially vocal about reviving those requirements. He argues that the process should take more time because each applicant should be thoroughly evaluated before entering the country. And frankly, given the stakes, I understand why this argument resonates with so many people right now.
The shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, entered the U.S. in 2021 on humanitarian parole and later received asylum approval in 2025. What troubles me is that even within the Trump administration, officials acknowledged that the vetting process he underwent was not sufficient.
His motives remain unclear. Reports mention mental health concerns and even the possibility that he was radicalized after arriving in the U.S. Hearing this only intensifies the debate over how the government should handle high-risk arrivals.
What truly surprised me was learning that the National Counterterrorism Center has already been pushing a proposal inside the White House to deport around two million people from mostly Muslim-majority countries who came under Biden. The idea is that they should not be allowed to remain unless they reapply from abroad under more rigorous standards. I don’t know if this plan will actually move forward, but the fact that it’s being discussed at all says a lot about the current climate.
Public comments from officials emphasize that the goal is to “undo the damage” caused by what they describe as lax vetting under the previous administration. And I’ve noticed that many lawmakers who were once cautious about sweeping immigration measures are now openly supporting a full reevaluation of everyone who entered during that period.
The Trump administration has already frozen asylum and visa applications from Afghan nationals and started auditing green cards issued to individuals from 19 countries. Trump himself has said that immigration from “third world countries” should be paused until new standards are in place.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been pushing even harder, calling for expanded travel bans and describing certain groups as threats. And from what I’m seeing, this more forceful approach is gaining political momentum.
I’ve been following this closely, and one thing is clear to me: even people who once supported pathways for Afghans who helped the U.S. military are now saying that the vetting process must be reexamined. Some insist we simply do not have all the facts yet. Others argue we already know enough to justify drastic reforms.
The Department of Homeland Security claims it is implementing the most rigorous screening protocols in agency history. Meanwhile, the White House maintains that Trump is committed to fulfilling his promise of prioritizing the safety of the American people — including, if necessary, what they describe as the largest deportation effort in U.S. history.
As I analyze all of this, I see a clear trend developing. This shooting didn’t just spark outrage — it accelerated policies that had already been slowly building behind the scenes. And now they’re moving forward with greater force and political backing than ever.
Whether these changes will improve national security, create new challenges, or reshape America’s immigration landscape in the long term remains to be seen. But what’s undeniable is that the pressure is growing and the consequences of this moment will be felt for years.