Van Hollen finds 'no evidence' of vetting system failures in Afghan shooting suspect's case

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) stated on Sunday that there is no proof linking the Afghan national accused of shooting two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., to inadequate vetting procedures. During an interview on ABC News's This Week, host Jonathan Karl asked if the senator was worried that this event might indicate broader lapses in screening processes.

We should always assess our vetting procedures, Van Hollen replied. However, in this situation, there is no indication that any step was overlooked.

He referred to comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who suggested that the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, may have become radicalized after arriving in the U.S. in 2021 through a Biden-era initiative aimed at resettling Afghans who assisted the U.S. during its two-decade presence in Afghanistan. Lakanwal had previously served in the CIA-trained strike force in Afghanistan, a role that required thorough vetting, and was officially granted asylum in April under the Trump administration.

As Secretary Noem noted, his radicalization could have occurred here. If that is the case, the latest vetting was conducted by the Trump administration, Van Hollen added.

Analysis: No Evidence of Vetting Failure in Washington Shooting

From my perspective, the statements made by Senator Chris Van Hollen clarify a critical point often lost in initial reporting: there is currently no evidence linking the accused shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, to lapses in the vetting process. While the incident is alarming, Van Hollen emphasized that each step of the resettlement and asylum procedure appears to have been followed properly.

The senator highlighted that Lakanwal was thoroughly vetted before receiving asylum, having served in a CIA-trained strike force in Afghanistan. This fact undermines any immediate claims that the Biden-era Afghan resettlement program inherently failed. Moreover, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s comments suggest the suspect’s radicalization could have occurred after his arrival in the United States, independent of initial screening procedures.

In conclusion, this case underscores the complexity of assessing risk after resettlement. Current evidence points to radicalization occurring post-arrival rather than flaws in vetting, and it reinforces the need to continuously monitor and support integration without prematurely assigning blame to established screening protocols.

Sources:

• Van Hollen says ‘no evidence’ of vetting system failures in Afghan shooting suspect’s case