US Suspends Afghan Immigration Requests After National Guard Shooting Near the White House
A quiet lunch hour in downtown Washington turned to panic when gunfire rang out near the White House. Two National Guard soldiers were left in critical condition. Within hours, the incident had triggered one of the most sweeping immigration moves of Donald Trump’s second term.
The US government has now halted all immigration requests involving Afghan nationals, after officials named a 29-year-old Afghan man as the suspect in the attack near Farragut Square. The case is being investigated as a possible act of terror, even as the motive remains unclear.
At stake is more than one criminal investigation. The suspension reaches deep into the heart of America’s post-Afghanistan legacy: its promises to Afghan allies, its approach to refugee protection and its renewed embrace of hardline border controls. This article explains what happened, why Afghan immigration has been frozen, how the decision fits into Trump’s broader agenda, and what it could mean for Afghans and Americans in the months ahead.
Key Points
Two National Guard soldiers were critically wounded in a shooting near the White House; the suspect is a 29-year-old Afghan national who arrived in 2021 under a post-war resettlement programme.
In response, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has indefinitely halted processing of all immigration requests related to Afghan nationals while it reviews security and vetting procedures.
President Trump has called the attack an “act of terror” and demanded a re-examination of every Afghan who entered the US during Joe Biden’s presidency.
Supporters say the freeze is a necessary security measure after a serious failure in vetting; critics call it collective punishment that targets people who followed the rules.
The move threatens to strand thousands of Afghans in legal limbo, including relatives of US-based Afghans, former interpreters and humanitarian cases.
The suspension revives political and legal battles from Trump’s first-term travel bans, raising questions over discrimination, due process and America’s reliability as a partner.
Background
The Washington shooting
On the afternoon of 26 November, two members of the West Virginia National Guard were on a high-visibility patrol close to Farragut Square, a busy commercial area a few blocks from the White House. According to police, a lone gunman approached the soldiers and opened fire in what officials describe as a “targeted” ambush. Both Guardsmen were critically injured, and the suspect himself was shot and taken into custody.
The Department of Homeland Security later identified the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national. He is reported to have entered the United States in September 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, the programme set up to resettle Afghans who fled after the Taliban’s return to power. He was granted asylum earlier this year.
Trump, addressing the nation from Florida, condemned the shooting as an “act of terror” and a “crime against humanity”, vowing that the suspect would “pay the steepest possible price”. He also ordered an additional 500 National Guard troops to Washington, expanding an already sizeable deployment in the capital.
Afghan resettlement after the fall of Kabul
When the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, tens of thousands of Afghans were evacuated in a chaotic airlift. Many had worked with US and allied forces or were at risk from the new Taliban government. Programmes such as Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), humanitarian parole and Operation Allies Welcome formed the backbone of this rapid resettlement effort.
Those pathways were controversial from the start. Supporters saw them as a moral obligation to former partners. Critics argued that vetting was rushed, documentation incomplete and security risks underestimated. Even before the Washington shooting, Afghan applicants faced backlogs, complex paperwork and uncertainty about their long-term status.
Trump’s second-term immigration agenda
Since returning to the White House, Trump has moved quickly to revive and expand his earlier hardline immigration policies. Afghan nationals were already facing a narrower set of options after a new travel ban targeting Afghanistan and other countries, along with the termination of temporary protections that had shielded some Afghans from deportation.
At the same time, thousands of National Guard troops have been deployed to Democratic-led cities, including Washington, as part of a broader crackdown on crime and irregular migration. That deployment has drawn lawsuits from critics who argue it oversteps federal authority and militarises domestic law enforcement.
The shooting near the White House has now become the most dramatic test yet of this second-term agenda.
Analysis
Political and geopolitical dimensions
The decision to halt Afghan immigration requests is as much a political signal as a security measure.
Trump and senior officials quickly linked the attack to Biden-era resettlement. In public statements, the president stressed that the suspect arrived in 2021, blaming “failed vetting” under his predecessor and insisting the US must “re-examine every single alien” who entered from Afghanistan during that period.
For Trump’s supporters, the incident appears to validate long-standing warnings from some Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators, who argued that Operation Allies Welcome and related programmes were too generous and too hasty. They frame the shooting as a direct consequence of prioritising humanitarian commitments over security.
Opponents see something very different. Immigrant-rights groups, refugee advocates and many veterans who served alongside Afghan partners have urged Americans not to vilify an entire community over one suspected attacker. They point out that many Afghan evacuees fought the Taliban, served as interpreters or worked on US-backed projects at great personal risk. Punishing them collectively, they argue, breaks promises and emboldens extremists who already claim that America cannot be trusted.
The geopolitical stakes are real. Washington still relies on partners worldwide who take risks based on US assurances. A perception that the United States abandons those who help it—even years later—could weaken future co-operation, not only in Afghanistan but in conflicts and intelligence operations elsewhere.
Economic and administrative impact
USCIS has said that the suspension is indefinite and covers “all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals” while security and vetting protocols are reviewed.Reuters+1
In practice, that may include:
Family-reunification petitions filed by Afghans already in the US.
Asylum applications and appeals.
Green card and naturalisation cases involving Afghan citizens.
Work-based and diversity-visa applications where the applicant holds Afghan nationality.
Even a short freeze will deepen already severe backlogs. Afghan applicants often wait years for decisions under normal conditions. A blanket pause halts progress for thousands of people mid-process, many of whom are living in precarious situations in third countries or surviving on temporary, expiring visas.
US employers and universities may also feel the effects. Afghan health workers, engineers and students who had secured offers or sponsorships may now find their cases frozen, adding disruption to sectors already facing labour shortages or international competition.
Social and cultural fallout
The political framing of the shooting risks stoking a broader backlash against Afghan communities in the US.
Afghan Americans and recent evacuees are already reporting heightened anxiety, with fears of harassment, workplace discrimination or local authorities scrutinising them more closely. Community leaders have urged calm, reminding the public that the overwhelming majority of Afghans in the US have no connection to crime or extremism.
This tension sits atop a wider culture war over crime, immigration and national identity. Trump’s allies have highlighted images of National Guard patrols and crime statistics in Democratic cities to argue that “soft” policies have failed. Opponents counter that constant association of migrants with violence fuels prejudice and ignores data showing that immigrants, including refugees, are generally less likely to commit serious crimes than native-born citizens.
For many Afghans who risked everything to stand with US forces, the message feels personal. They see themselves recast from allies into potential threats, their past service overshadowed by one horrific incident whose details are still emerging.
Security and legal implications
From a security standpoint, the government argues that a pause on Afghan immigration is a necessary precaution while vetting systems are reviewed. Authorities say they must understand how a man who arrived through official channels and later gained asylum came to be accused of such an attack near the White House.
Critics question whether a nationality-wide freeze is the most effective tool. They argue that targeting an entire population may not fix underlying flaws in intelligence-sharing or case-by-case risk assessment. Worse, they say, it could drive vulnerable people towards smugglers and irregular routes if legal pathways are closed, potentially increasing security risks rather than reducing them.
Legally, the move echoes Trump’s earlier travel bans, which faced years of litigation and were repeatedly revised before a narrower version survived Supreme Court review. Opponents are likely to challenge the new suspension on grounds of discrimination and due process, especially if it affects applicants who have already met significant legal thresholds or who hold special statuses linked to service alongside US forces.
Courts will once again be asked to weigh the president’s broad authority over immigration against constitutional and statutory limits on targeting specific groups. The outcome could shape not only Afghan cases, but the wider legal framework for nationality-based restrictions in future crises.
Why This Matters
The immediate victims of the Washington shooting are the two Guardsmen and their families, whose lives have been upended. But the fallout spreads far beyond one street corner in the US capital.
For Afghan nationals, the suspension raises urgent questions. People who sold their homes, left jobs or relocated to third countries in anticipation of US visas may now find themselves stranded, with savings running out and local protections thin. Those inside Afghanistan face obvious dangers from the Taliban, especially if they are known to have worked with Western organisations.
Within the United States, Afghan Americans and recent evacuees now navigate an atmosphere of suspicion. Their immigration status may suddenly look less secure, and their prospects for family reunification more remote.
The move also feeds into wider global trends. Around the world, governments are tightening borders, re-evaluating refugee commitments and linking security incidents to migration controls. The US decision will be closely watched in Europe, Canada and elsewhere, where Afghan resettlement has also been politically contentious.
Looking ahead, key questions include:
How long the USCIS review will last, and whether it ends with targeted tweaks or a longer-term restriction.
Whether Congress moves to codify tighter controls or, conversely, to protect Afghan allies through new legislation.
How courts respond if legal challenges argue that the suspension oversteps executive power.
Whether investigators ultimately find evidence of terrorism, mental-health issues, personal grievances or some combination in the suspect’s motives.
Each of these developments will shape whether the freeze is seen as a measured response to a genuine security failure or as a political overreaction that punishes the many for the alleged actions of one.
Real-World Impact
Consider a few examples of how this policy shift might be felt on the ground.
An Afghan interpreter who relocated to the United States in 2021 has spent years trying to bring a spouse and children out of hiding in Kabul. Their immigrant-visa cases were finally moving after repeated security checks. Now, everything stops. The family remains in danger, with no clear timeline for reunion.
A young Afghan doctor, resettled in a midwestern city, has been filling shortages in a local hospital under a temporary status. A planned route to permanent residency depended on a pending application now caught in the freeze. The hospital, already struggling to recruit staff, must prepare for the possibility that a valued colleague could lose their future in the country.
A small non-profit that specialises in supporting Afghan evacuees has built its services around predictable, if slow, immigration pathways: housing for new arrivals, language classes, legal aid. With new arrivals halted and many cases stuck, funding becomes precarious and staff must pivot from integration work to crisis management for families stuck overseas.
And in downtown Washington, office workers who once complained about traffic now pass armed soldiers and police tape on their way to lunch. For them, the shooting and its aftermath are a reminder that national debates over immigration, security and political power can collide in the most ordinary of places.
Conclusion
The shooting of two National Guard soldiers near the White House has unleashed a chain reaction far beyond the crime scene. An alleged attacker with roots in America’s last war has become the catalyst for a sweeping freeze on Afghan immigration, reviving old battles over who gets to come to the United States and on what terms.
At the heart of the story lies a stark tension. One side argues that when security fails, the state must act quickly and decisively, even if that means broad restrictions. The other insists that abandoning individual assessment for blanket bans betrays core values and endangers those who followed the rules.
In the weeks ahead, investigators will work to understand the suspect’s motives, doctors will fight to save the wounded soldiers, and immigration officials will review files and risk models. Courts may yet be asked to decide whether the new suspension crosses legal lines.
What comes next will signal more than the fate of one policy. It will show whether the United States responds to fear by narrowing its promise, or whether it can balance security with the commitments it made to allies who once staked their lives on that promise.
