A routine breaking-news update transformed into a political flashpoint on Wednesday after reports surfaced that the suspect in the shooting of two National Guard members in the nation’s capital had been granted asylum in April—during the administration of former President Donald J. Trump. The revelation set off an immediate wave of political recriminations, public confusion, and rapid-response messaging from officials across the political spectrum, thrusting immigration policy and administrative oversight back into the national spotlight.
According to internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents reviewed by several news outlets, the suspect—identified by law enforcement as a 29-year-old Afghan national—received asylum approval earlier this year. The disclosure quickly prompted questions about the vetting process, applicant history, and the chain of command responsible for authorizing the application.
Within minutes of the report breaking, online discussion surged across social platforms, with clips of politicians reacting in real time spreading rapidly. The story took on added volatility when former President Trump, speaking to reporters after a campaign event, denied any personal involvement in the asylum approval and instead placed blame on President Biden and what he described as a “broken system” left over from the previous administration. “Nobody knew anything about it,” Trump said. “This is a failure of the people in charge now.”
The claim, however, appears to contradict the timeline outlined in internal DHS records suggesting the approval occurred during the final months of Trump’s administration. Senior officials familiar with the asylum process say that while presidents do not review individual cases, policy directives and administrative leadership can significantly influence the speed and criteria of asylum decisions.
The Biden administration declined to comment directly on Trump’s remarks but reiterated that DHS and the FBI are conducting a full investigation into both the shooting and the suspect’s immigration history. A White House spokesperson emphasized that “national security procedures remain unchanged” and that federal agencies are working to determine whether any errors were made in the review process.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties called for clarity but took sharply different tones. Democratic legislators argued that the revelation reflects long-standing concerns about gaps in vetting under the previous administration. “This raises serious questions about the integrity of the system during that period,” said Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona. “We need a full accounting.”
Republicans, meanwhile, accused the Biden administration of attempting to shift blame. Representative James Comer of Kentucky, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, called the emerging narrative “highly suspect” and urged a hearing to review the documents in question. “The American people deserve transparency rather than another politically convenient storyline,” Comer said.
Analysts say the political reaction underscores the longstanding fragility of immigration issues in Washington. “Whenever violence involves a recent arrival, the debate becomes immediately polarized,” said Juliette Kayyem, a national security expert and former DHS official. “This case is no exception. The facts are still developing, yet the political narrative is already being cemented.”
Behind the scenes, several DHS staff members described being “caught off guard” by the speed and intensity of the fallout. Officials familiar with early briefings say the department has launched an internal review to determine whether the asylum adjudication followed all required steps and whether any red flags were missed.
The shooting itself remains under active investigation. Authorities say the suspect acted alone, and no evidence has yet emerged suggesting ties to extremist networks. Both National Guard members injured in the incident are reported to be in stable condition.
As the political and legal processes continue, one question now dominates the conversation in Washington: What did senior officials know about the suspect’s background—and when did they know it? With multiple congressional inquiries expected and public scrutiny intensifying, the asylum decision is likely to remain a central point of controversy in the weeks ahead.
