In late November 2025, a wave of outrage resurfaced a 2021 statement by then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki regarding the security screening of Afghan refugees. Psaki’s forceful assurance, “I can absolutely assure you that no one enters the United States without going through a thorough screening and background check,” is now being fiercely juxtaposed against two alarming incidents, leading critics to demand accountability from the former Biden administration.
The statement was made on September 1, 2021, amidst the chaotic U.S. withdrawal and the subsequent launch of Operation Allies Welcome (OAW). The Biden administration faced intense scrutiny over the hurried evacuation and resettlement of over 120,000 Afghans, many of whom had aided American forces. Psaki had emphasized the priority of saving lives while completing crucial paperwork in transit countries, aiming to quell public anxiety about potential security gaps in the process.
The Recent Incidents
The reliability of that assurance has been publicly questioned following two high-profile cases in the last week of November 2025. On November 26, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national granted asylum after arriving in 2021, allegedly shot two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. The attack tragically resulted in one death and left the other critically injured. Separately, two days later, Mohammad Dawood Alokozay was arrested in Texas for making a terroristic threat. Alokozay, also a 2021 evacuee, had posted a video suggesting he was building a bomb targeting Fort Worth. The swift succession of these events—an Afghan shot and killed a National Guardsman and another threatened to bomb Texas—has fueled intense criticism, with commentators stating that Psaki and the former Biden administration “should be ashamed of their actions and words.” Both individuals arrived via the OAW programs, although investigations into their motives and connections are ongoing.
Overview of the Screening Process
The vetting for Afghan evacuees under OAW was designed to be multi-layered. It involved collecting biometric data—fingerprints and photos—and conducting checks by several top security agencies, including the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center. Evacuees often spent weeks or months at military bases for processing and additional security assessments. This process was effective in identifying and flagging numerous risks, including 55 individuals found to be on watchlists. However, audits later noted challenges, such as incomplete data, which potentially led to a small number of oversights. The system aimed to balance the urgency of the evacuation with necessary security, but the recent incidents demonstrate that it was not entirely foolproof.
Ongoing Debates and Implications
These two cases have amplified calls for more stringent border measures and a migration pause from certain countries, a policy announced by President Trump. Conversely, refugee advocacy groups argue that broad restrictions or re-screening efforts could retraumatize families who have successfully integrated and overlook the fact that the vast majority of resettled Afghans pose no threat. They contend that the rarity of such severe events suggests the initial system, despite its imperfections, worked for the overwhelming majority. The debate continues to urge a nuanced approach, suggesting that while improvements in data accuracy and technology could enhance vetting effectiveness, a general stigma against the entire population of evacuees must be avoided. The evidence ultimately points to a system that balanced urgency with security, but which still allowed rare and catastrophic failures to occur.
Jen Psaki on Afghan refugees: “I can absolutely assure you that no one is coming into the United States of America who has not been through a thorough screening and background check process.”
In just one week an Afghan shot national guardsmen and another threatened to bomb Texas pic.twitter.com/8mPFmQM1Yu
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 30, 2025