National Security Concerns Rise Over Terror Watchlist Suspects Entering U.S. Under Biden Policies
The revelation by Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, that about 18,000 known or suspected terrorists have entered the United States raises urgent alarms about national security. During a recent press conference, Kent referred to the deadly shooting of two National Guard members, pointing directly to the Biden administration’s policies as a catalyst for this unsettling statistic. “Eighteen thousand known and suspected terrorists the Biden administration let come into our country,” he stated emphatically. “There’s no other word for it—this is betrayal.”
The alarming figure sparked widespread discussion, particularly after a tweet characterized it as “treason.” The complexities surrounding this number are still unfolding as intelligence officials scrutinize the weaknesses in vetting processes established during mass resettlements following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.
A tragic case illustrates the consequences of these vetting inadequacies. Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan evacuee who participated in “Operation Allies Welcome,” attacked two National Guard soldiers on November 27, 2025. This incident resulted in the death of Staff Sgt. Sarah Beckstrom and left Sgt. Andrew Wolfe with critical injuries. Although Lakanwal had ties to U.S. forces as a former member of the CIA-backed Kandahar Strike Force, he had not undergone thorough screening for psychological or behavioral issues that might impact his integration.
Kent voiced a critical observation about Lakanwal’s entry, asking, “What did they expect would happen?” This highlights a glaring oversight in vetting procedures where operational allies were placed into civilian life without adequate assessment of their readiness to peacefully coexist with U.S. citizens.
The Biden administration’s quick resettlement approach brought in over 80,000 Afghans in a short span. Unfortunately, many of these entries were facilitated under parole authority, often lacking rigorous biometric or documentary verification. DHS assessments reveal serious gaps, including missing records and absent psychological evaluations, which could have flagged potential risks.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe emphasized the crucial oversight with his remark that the administration acted on prior military cooperation without evaluating whether these individuals were truly fit to be American neighbors. “Is this someone fit to become our neighbor, employee, or citizen?” he questioned, urging more foresight in the vetting process.
The implications of this situation extend beyond individual cases. Many Afghan evacuees were processed under wartime criteria, which are less stringent than those for immigration purposes. A senior intelligence official remarked bluntly that, “Biden threw all of this out and applied tactical wartime vetting—he ignored 20 years of lessons in refugee screening.”
Furthermore, there has been a notable rise in encounters with individuals on terrorism watchlists, skyrocketing by 450% among foreign nationals at the southern border and during resettlements. The 18,000 statistic derives from various watchlist databases, encompassing individuals with full terrorist convictions and those identified for earlier-stage concerns related to radicalization.
Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary at DHS, expressed regret over insufficient internal controls. “This monster would not have been removed because of his parole…” she noted, highlighting a system where serious reassessments of inmates are often neglected unless they commit further crimes.
In response to growing security threats, officials have paused some expedited immigration programs. As of December 2025, processing for Afghan Special Immigrant Visas is under review while audits of Vetting Coordination Centers are taking place. These measures reflect a reactive approach to mounting evidence of failure in proper vetting practices.
Critics of the Biden administration’s immigration protocols are raising serious concerns over safety. Chad Robichaux, a former U.S. Marine, lamented, “We have no idea who they are—zero vetting.” He believes decisions were made hastily, prioritizing speed over thoroughness, risking long-term safety for short-term optics.
Whistleblower accounts have surfaced, alleging that officials pushed for rapid processes under the threat of “catastrophic diplomatic fallout.” Such pressures led to the use of Priority Evacuation Lists, which compromised careful evaluation that should be standard for asylum seekers and visa applicants alike.
The perception of diminished vetting safety among Americans is concerning. Polls indicate 62% of likely voters feel less secure about immigration processes than five years ago, rising to 74% among those aged 50 and older.
The Lakanwal incident, where he opened fire using a concealed weapon, highlights the urgent ramifications of poor vetting in national security contexts. As he struck Beckstrom and Wolfe, he demonstrated a serious breach of safety that unfolded just blocks from the White House.
Investigators are now reviewing background checks for other Afghan evacuees, searching for similar red flags. Congressional examinations of internal DHS documents revealed at least 1,200 unresolved derogatory findings by June 2025, with little to no follow-up actions taken.
Joe Kent encapsulated the severity of the situation with clarity: “This isn’t just an immigration issue—it’s a national security crisis. And unless we start treating it that way, more Americans will pay the price.” The stakes are high, and the implications of mishandled vetting resonate across communities.
"*" indicates required fields
