The debate over Afghan immigration policy has reached a fever pitch in Washington, D.C., exposing deep divisions among Republicans and raising questions about America’s obligations to its wartime allies. In the wake of a deadly shooting involving an Afghan national and a National Guard member in the nation’s capital in November 2025, the Trump administration has doubled down on sweeping immigration restrictions. This has triggered a fierce response—not just from Democrats and advocacy groups, but from within the Republican Party itself.
Over the past year, the United States has paused visa and immigration programs for Afghan nationals. According to NPR and Beritaja, this policy shift has stranded thousands of Afghans, including many who once assisted U.S. military forces as interpreters, drivers, guards, and cooks. Those already residing in the U.S. have seen their temporary permissions revoked, leaving their futures in limbo.
The most recent crackdown followed the arrest of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan man charged with the fatal shooting of a National Guard personnel in Washington, D.C., around Thanksgiving 2025. Lakanwal had entered the U.S. in 2021 under President Biden’s Operation Allies Welcome program and was granted asylum earlier this year under the Trump administration. The incident has fueled calls from some quarters for even tighter restrictions, but it has also prompted warnings from key Republican lawmakers about the risks of reactionary policymaking.
Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a Republican, cautioned against what he called a “knee-jerk reaction” that could unfairly block Afghans with legitimate cases for temporary or permanent status. “One thing we’ve forgotten is how important that is for our special operators,” Tillis told NPR, referencing the deep bonds between U.S. military personnel and their Afghan partners. “It puts them in a more dangerous spot if we lose sight of that.”
Senator Susan Collins of Maine echoed these concerns, emphasizing the contributions of Afghans who served alongside American troops. “There are Afghan citizens who acted as guards, drivers, interpreters, cooks for our troops,” Collins said. “I’ve talked to veterans who have been very concerned about the safety of Afghans who have helped us. So I think the answer is more intensive and careful vetting than occurred during the Biden administration.”
Despite these moderate voices, former President Trump has remained steadfast in his hardline approach. On his first day back in office, he suspended the refugee resettlement program, effectively stranding thousands of would-be arrivals, including many Afghan allies. In June 2025, Trump added Afghanistan to a list of 19 countries subject to strict travel restrictions. After the November shooting, his administration paused the processing of asylum cases, green cards, and other immigration services for those from the affected countries, including Afghanistan. As Trump declared at a Pennsylvania rally, “I’ve also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries.”
Trump and his allies argue that the Biden administration’s policies allowed “countless unvetted criminals to invade our country and harm the American people.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson went as far as to say, “This animal would’ve never been here if not for Joe Biden’s dangerous policies.” However, it remains unclear what, if anything, additional vetting could have uncovered prior to Lakanwal’s arrival, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has suggested that he may have been radicalized after coming to the U.S.
Advocacy groups and some lawmakers have long argued that the U.S. government—across both Democratic and Republican administrations—has failed to provide adequate resources for Afghan allies, particularly in terms of mental health support for those transitioning to life in America after experiencing war and violence. Agencies like the CIA and Department of Homeland Security have been singled out for criticism on this front.
The policy debate has also shone a spotlight on Congress’s role in shaping immigration law. Shawn VanDiver, founder of the advocacy organization AfghanEvac, accused lawmakers of abdicating their constitutional responsibilities. “Instead of asserting its constitutional role, Congress has allowed itself to be sidelined, failing to provide meaningful oversight,” VanDiver said during a press conference. “Failing to modernize the asylum, refugee, or [special immigrant visa] systems. The vacuum they have left is being filled with fear-mongering, not facts; politics, not policy.”
Indeed, 2025 has seen Congress pass very few immigration-related bills, with most legislative efforts focused on funding the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement operations. A bipartisan proposal to re-establish a State Department office dedicated to relocating Afghan refugees was stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act by House Republicans before the bill passed the House and headed to the Senate. Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a California Democrat who introduced the provision, lamented, “Republican leadership tanked months of bipartisan work. It is truly shameful that my Republican colleagues, some of whom served in Afghanistan and uniquely understand the debt we owe our allies, have once again put blind loyalty to Trump over American principles and obligations.”
Not all Republicans are content to leave immigration policy solely in the administration’s hands. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana has championed the “Fulfilling Promises to Afghan Allies Act,” which would provide a pathway to legal permanent residency for Afghan allies after additional vetting. “I’d like to see the bill that I sponsored, which would have increased vetting on anybody applying here, to take effect before we make another decision,” Cassidy told NPR. The bill, introduced in August 2025 with bipartisan support, has yet to receive a committee vote.
Other Republicans, however, remain wary of reopening the conversation. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who has previously backed special immigrant visas for Afghan interpreters and translators, told NPR that “it’s premature to talk about that.” Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, insisted that vetting is primarily an executive branch responsibility, saying, “Our staff are not the ones that are actually doing the vetting. The vetting process does exist and is out there. It’s just a matter of its execution at this point.”
Against this backdrop, the numbers tell a stark story. In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. admitted approximately 14,680 Afghan refugees, making Afghanistan one of the top countries of origin for new arrivals. Yet, with the refugee program now scaled back and a growing focus on other demographics, the path forward for Afghan allies remains uncertain.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the fate of America’s Afghan partners continues to hang in the balance, caught between shifting political winds and the enduring question of what the United States owes to those who risked everything for its mission overseas.
