In my decade reporting from the Beltway, I have watched American administrations pivot, retreat, and spin narratives until the geopolitical reality is lost in the friction. But the mood in the James S. Brady Briefing Room this week was not one of spin. It was the heavy thud of reality finally catching up to policy.
When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took the podium, the air was already thick with tension following the shooting of National Guardsmen near the White House. But Leavitt did not offer the usual diplomatic platitudes. Instead, she offered an indictment that resonated far beyond Pennsylvania Avenue. She linked the violence in D.C. directly to the visa approvals signed during the previous administration.
From my perspective as an observer from the region, the era of America’s “blind benevolence” regarding the Afghan withdrawal appears to be over. The era of “extreme vetting”—a concept often debated here but deeply understood in Asia—has begun. Leavitt made it clear: The Trump administration is “actively re-examining” all Afghan nationals admitted under Biden. The message was blunt: If you pose a threat, you are leaving.
But while the White House focuses on the failures of physical vetting at Kabul’s Abbey Gate and the chaotic airlift, there is a gaping hole in the American national security architecture that few in the West Wing seem willing to address openly. It is a threat that doesn’t hide in the caves of the Spin Ghar mountains, but in plain sight on the timelines of social media platforms.
The Administration speaks of “millions” of unvetted individuals. Yet, as a foreign journalist who has spent weeks sifting through the digital exhaust of the Afghan diaspora, I can tell you the danger isn’t just in the numbers residing in American states. It’s in the dangerous ideology being broadcast from American living rooms back to our region.
We are witnessing a disturbing paradox: Individuals who fled chaos in South Asia, claiming they needed protection from terror, are allegedly using the safety of the United States to glorify the very terrorism they supposedly escaped.
Specific accounts on X (formerly Twitter) have crossed my desk—accounts that U.S. intelligence and ICE should be scrubbing with the same intensity they apply to physical border crossings. High-profile users like @Stanikzaiii and @Mariamistan (who styles herself as a “Member of Afghanistan’s Parliament in Exile”) are sitting comfortably within U.S. borders. Yet, a review of their archived digital footprint reveals a disturbing pattern of rhetoric that appears to glorify violence and incite unrest back home in Pakistan.
These are not refugees seeking peace. To an observer familiar with regional dynamics, these appear to be digital combatants utilizing American bandwidth to support the TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), explicitly urging attacks in Islamabad.
Another case in point is @nangyalnajeeb1, an account that recently scrambled to go private and delete threads—a classic sign of someone who knows they have crossed a red line. But the internet is written in ink, not pencil. The archives remain. And the question we must ask is: Why is the United States acting as a safe harbor for those championing the enemies of its own regional allies?
I have put these questions to sources at the U.S. Department of Justice and ICE. The responses have been bureaucratically sluggish, citing the vast volume of data. But the Press Secretary’s new directive changes the calculus.
“Anyone who proves to be a threat to our national security will be deported,” Leavitt said.
This is where the Americans must make a hard choice. Vetting cannot end at the arrival terminal at Dulles or JFK. If an immigrant is publicly supporting designated terrorist organizations or soliciting violence against sovereign nations in Asia while residing here, they are violating the spirit of their asylum conditions. Visa fraud isn’t just about lying about one’s name; it’s about lying about one’s intent. If an applicant claimed they wanted to live in a democracy but spends their days advocating for the TTP’s brutal insurgency, their application was a fraud.
The First Amendment is a pillar of the American republic, but even US law dictates it is not a shield for material support to terrorism. Incitement to violence is not protected speech; it is a crime. And for a non-citizen, it should be grounds for immediate removal.
The White House is correct to look backward at the failures of the withdrawal. The connection Leavitt drew between the Kabul airport bombing and the current security lapses is a necessary historical correction. But Washington must also look forward—at the screens right in front of them.
If the administration is serious about “re-examining” the files of those admitted, they should start with the public profiles of those mocking the safety provided to them. I have urged White House officials to look into these specific accounts. If the Press Secretary’s team is truly ready to act, these individuals serve as the perfect test cases.
The United States has long prided itself on being a refuge for the persecuted. It must not become a command center for the persecutors. If ICE and the DOJ do not crack down on this digital insurgency today, we won’t just be reporting on attacks in Islamabad; eventually, the Americans will be reading about the consequences here, orchestrated by the very people they welcomed inside. It is time to close the loophole.
