By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a Sunday interview, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem struggled to address the fact that the suspected National Guard shooter’s asylum request was approved during the Trump administration. Noem instead shifted blame to the Biden administration, stating that vetting procedures were lacking under Biden, despite the asylum being granted in April after Trump had assumed office. The shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, arrived in the U.S. in 2021 and is accused of firing on National Guard members, resulting in one fatality. Critics on social media have also pointed to the appointment of Thomas Fugate, a former landscaper, to head up U.S. terror prevention as a potential security concern.
Read the original article here
ICE Barbie Short-Circuits When Confronted on Trump Granting D.C. Shooting Suspect Asylum
So, the whole “ICE Barbie” situation, where Kristi Noem, the former governor, got the nickname for her, shall we say, enthusiastic approach to immigration, really took a turn during that *Meet the Press* interview. The core issue? Trump granting asylum to Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the D.C. shooting suspect. And the response from Noem? Well, it wasn’t exactly a masterclass in clear communication. When pressed on the vetting process, her answers felt, let’s say, less than forthcoming. “Vetting is… vetting is… vetting is happening when they come into the country,” she stammered, before immediately pivoting to blaming the Biden administration for the shooting. It’s like her circuits were getting overloaded.
It wasn’t just *Meet the Press*. On ABC News, the same questions arose. Noem seemed to avoid directly answering whether the Trump administration had actually done any vetting *before* granting Lakanwal asylum. The host essentially laid it out: “Are you saying there was no vetting done by the Trump administration?” Noem didn’t really refute it. It’s almost like she was afraid to open a can of worms, or perhaps, it was simply easier to deflect.
It’s tempting to chalk it up to a clumsy interview, or even just some technical difficulties, as some suggest. But when you look at the larger picture, you see a deeper issue at play. This whole case, particularly the fact that Lakanwal was seemingly not properly vetted, is a perfect storm of political fallout.
The lack of rigorous vetting prior to granting asylum, especially given Lakanwal’s history, raises some serious questions. If the administration wasn’t doing its due diligence, why not? Was it a conscious decision to expedite the process, and if so, what were the priorities? The implications of that inaction are far-reaching.
It’s also worth noting the larger context. This wasn’t some minor player. Lakanwal reportedly had a history, and one that should have raised red flags.
Some people want to point fingers, and the partisan divide is clear. But there is a huge point to be made about how both parties are implicated. The CIA-backed, US-Special-Forces-supported Kandahar Strike Force that he operated with had a well-documented pattern of grave human rights abuse, including arbitrary and summary executions, enforced disappearances, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, indiscriminate attacks, and other war crime. US policy, under presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump alike, appears to have ignored this record. The lack of vetting was on purpose.
But the issue stretches beyond just one person or one administration. It highlights the complexities of immigration policies, asylum processes, and, frankly, the messy realities of international relations. The whole situation forces a reckoning with how we handle these issues. Are we truly prioritizing safety and security, or are other factors at play? The answer, unfortunately, is rarely simple. And if there is a massive backlog, as the Biden administration inherited, there needs to be an overhaul.
The interview also underscored the political theater surrounding immigration. Blaming “Joe Biden” is an easy out, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problems. It’s a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility or offering any real solutions. This finger-pointing does a disservice to the victims, the truth, and the entire process of accountability.
In the end, this “ICE Barbie” episode, as much as we may dislike the name, lays bare a deeper problem. And that is that the people who serve in these roles are also human beings. The interview showed an inability to provide a clear answer regarding asylum procedures. The problem is a lack of accountability, transparency, and a willingness to confront difficult truths. The whole incident really does feel like a short circuit, not just for Noem, but for the entire system she represents.