Revoke Parole, Review Every Visa: Rubio’s Roadmap After The DC National Guard Execution

The execution-style ambush in downtown Washington, in which Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal gunned down National Guard Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and left Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe fighting for his life, was not an isolated bolt from the blue. It was the foreseeable consequence of a moral and strategic decision by the Biden administration to fly tens of thousands of Afghans into the U.S. with little more than a promise that they had once been on our side. Among them, according to veterans and reporting in the days since the attack, were not only interpreters and bureaucrats but members of the CIA’s notorious “Zero Units,” death squads like the 03 Kandahar Strike Force that human rights groups have tied to summary executions, enforced disappearances, and night raid massacres.

To understand what that means, imagine what would happen if the United States simply took several thousand members of a Latin American death squad, men trained and rewarded for kicking down doors and killing enemies at close range, then scattered them into working-class neighborhoods in Minneapolis, Bellingham, or Dallas. The doctrine of trauma alone would tell you what comes next. You cannot train men for years to hunt, interrogate, and kill in the dark, then drop them into an alien culture and assume they will quietly run food trucks and drive for UberEats or DoorDash. You have taught them one thing, violence, and then you have left them unsupervised.

The public record on Zero Units is not ambiguous. Human Rights Watch, the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, and independent reporters have documented strike forces operating under Afghan intelligence service designations like NDS 01, 02, and 03, often with CIA advisers on the ground, conducting kill-capture raids that left families shredded and villages terrorized. These units were accused of extrajudicial killings, attacks on clinics, and indiscriminate use of air power called in by US handlers. Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan, Nangarhar, Khost, the same names now appear alongside Washington and Bellingham in the stories about Lakanwal’s trajectory from elite paramilitary operative to accused domestic terrorist.

Now overlay that record with the scale of Biden’s evacuation and resettlement choices. Through Operation Allies Refuge and its domestic successor, Operation Allies Welcome, the administration admitted that it brought roughly 7,000 members of Afghan death squads and their families into the U.S., including about 2,000 fighters from Zero Units and similar death squads. These men were placed into a wider cohort of almost 100,000 Afghans brought onto U.S. soil in a matter of months, almost all on humanitarian parole, a form of bare discretionary admission with none of the durable legal protections associated with lawful permanent residence. Subsequent reporting has revealed that thousands within that broader cohort triggered national security, public safety, or fraud flags in U.S. databases, yet were still released into communities while their files languished. Some of those flagged cases involved men who had been freed from Taliban prisons or who had served in precisely the kill teams at issue in the current controversy.

The picture that emerges is simple. Biden did not just rescue sympathetic families who worked the front desk at the embassy. He airlifted a substantial group of seasoned Afghan combatants, including Zero Unit alumni, many of whom were not patriots at all but men the CIA recruited directly out of Afghan prisons. In fact, the majority of these death squad members had been jailed by the Taliban for serious crimes, including murder, sexual assault, and violent theft. They were poor, uneducated, military-aged men driven by revenge rather than any ideological alignment with the United States. Biden scattered this cohort across the American interior under loose supervision and with little follow-up. In the most charitable telling, this was an act of sentimental moralism unmoored from prudence, an attempt to “keep promises” to anyone who ever touched an American program, regardless of their record back home. In the less charitable telling, it was reckless indifference to the safety of American citizens.

Either way, Lakanwal’s attack reveals the cost. Reports now indicate that local refugee workers and case managers raised alarms about his mental state, documenting manic road trips, suicidal talk, and an inability to function in ordinary work. He was a veteran of more than a decade of Afghanistan’s most intense and horrific nighttime terror raids, a survivor of trauma that would break many soldiers, yet he was not in a structured treatment program. Instead, he was drifting around the Pacific Northwest, walking a psychological tightrope in full view of a bureaucracy that could not be bothered to connect the dots. He was nonetheless granted asylum, a decision officials now say would never have been made had the full file been in front of adjudicators.

This is the factual backdrop for a more basic legal and political point. Every one of these Afghans, from Zero Unit operatives to their adult family members, occupies a legal category sharply different from the constitutional citizenship that attaches to those born or naturalized within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause creates a class of Americans whose membership cannot be stripped by executive whim, and the Supreme Court has made clear in cases like Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas that once someone is a constitutional citizen, the government cannot take that status away absent fraud in the original naturalization or a voluntary decision to relinquish it. That shield does not extend to the men and women whose presence in the United States stems from statutes passed by Congress or from the executive’s pure discretion.

Statutory and discretionary statuses, by contrast, are inherently revocable. Humanitarian parole is a quintessential example. It is not an admission in the technical sense; it confers no permanent right to remain, and it exists solely because Congress has allowed the executive to temporarily allow otherwise inadmissible aliens into the United States for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons. Asylum and refugee status are also statutory creations, granted by executive officers under conditions Congress has specified and explicitly subject to termination when those conditions are no longer met or when fraud, criminality, or national security grounds are present. Lawful permanent residence, the green card status that many of these Afghans hope to reach, is more durable, yet it too can be rescinded within five years if obtained by fraud and can be the basis for removal if the holder commits certain crimes, aligns with terrorist activity, or violates the terms of admission.

This hierarchy matters because it shows where President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio can act unilaterally and where they must proceed through slower judicial channels. The most potent tool in Rubio’s arsenal is the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, the century-old principle under which federal courts decline to second-guess the decisions of consular officers denying, revoking, or withholding visas and other entry documents for aliens abroad. Congress codified the Secretary’s discretion in statutes that allow him to revoke any visa or other documentation at any time, in his discretion, and courts have read cases like Knauff v. Shaughnessy and later decisions to mean that exclusion decisions for noncitizens outside our borders are political questions, not judicial ones. The Supreme Court’s handling of President Trump’s travel proclamation in Trump v. Hawaii only hardened this view, emphasizing that where the executive articulates a facially legitimate and bona fide reason grounded in foreign affairs or national security, the courts step aside.

For the Afghan militants and many of their family members, that means Trump and Rubio are not helplessly trapped by Biden’s choices in 2021. Quite the opposite. A second Trump term has already used emergency authority to pause new asylum grants and Afghan visa issuance. The next step is to reverse the pipeline itself. Rubio can, as a matter of law, instruct consular officers and State Department bureaus to revoke every entry document, parole authorization, transportation letter, and refugee or asylee travel document issued to Afghan nationals under Biden-era programs, subject only to narrow exceptions he wishes to carve out. He can do so on the ground that ongoing intelligence and the Lakanwal killing show a systemic failure of vetting that renders prior approvals unreliable. Under existing law and doctrine, no federal judge can order him to reissue those documents.

What does that mean in practice for the Zero Unit cohort and other non-vetted Afghans? First, it means that every Afghan who arrived on humanitarian parole can have that parole terminated, either by explicit revocation or by refusing to extend it. Once parole lapses, the person is removable. Trump and Rubio can build a triage system in which Zero Unit membership, combat service in CIA-backed kill teams, serious derogatory flags in DHS databases, or unexplained gaps in a file trigger immediate placement into removal proceedings or, if the person is currently abroad, a permanent bar on reentry. For those who already obtained asylum, the administration can use statutory termination provisions that allow revocation when the person committed fraud, poses a danger to the security of the United States, or no longer qualifies as a refugee in light of changed country conditions.

Second, it means that even Afghans who have progressed to lawful permanent residence are not untouchable. Rubio cannot use consular nonreviewability to sign a magic order that vacates a green card, but he can do two things that are almost as consequential. He can direct DHS to conduct fraud and security audits of green cards obtained by Biden-era Afghan parolees, rescinding any status granted on the basis of false statements within the five-year statutory window, and he can weaponize the boundary between inside and outside the United States. When a green card holder is abroad, attempting to return, they are treated under immigration law as an applicant for admission if certain triggers are present, including extended time outside the country, suspected criminal activity, or security concerns. Rubio can instruct consular posts and carriers to deny boarding, refuse returning resident visas, and treat these individuals as intending immigrants without valid documentation. Courts have been clear that nonresident aliens stuck outside the border line have almost no constitutional claim to demand entry.

The effect is straightforward. A Zero Unit veteran who parlayed a parole entry into a green card but then travels back to the region could find himself stranded abroad, unable to board a flight, his green card suddenly reduced to plastic with no associated right to enter. He could sue, but without a foot on U.S. soil, his odds are poor, and the litigation would take years. In the meantime, the practical question that matters for public safety, whether he is present in the neighborhoods where Beckstrom’s family lives or on the far side of the world, has been answered.

Critics will say that this is collective punishment, that most Afghans resettled under Operation Allies Welcome have committed no crimes, and that many did indeed risk their lives against the Taliban. No conservative should want to blur the hard moral difference between an Afghan translator who quietly processed payroll and a man who led door-kicking raids in Kandahar. The point of insisting that these statuses are revocable is not to treat every Afghan evacuee as a terrorist; it is to restore the basic priority that the U.S. government’s first duty is to its own citizens and lawful constitutional community, not to those invited or paroled onto our territory by a previous administration.

That is why the right approach for Trump and Rubio is not a blind dragnet, but a structured, presumptively terminating review. Start with the narrowest, most dangerous slice, the roughly 2,000 or so identified Afghan militants, commandos, and Zero Unit alumni, along with the 5,000 immediate relatives who came in on their coattails. Require each to affirmatively reapply for the right to remain under tightened standards that take their unit history seriously, any evidence of war crimes, and their assimilation trajectory in the U.S. Give them notice, interviews, and the opportunity to produce exculpatory material. At the same time, make clear that the default in this cohort is departure, not indefinite presence. The goal is not to emulate Biden’s sentimental chaos; it is to establish a morally serious framework in which the burden of proof lies squarely on those whose only documented training is in violence.

Once that core problem is addressed, the same architecture of executive power can be used more broadly to reverse the third-world migration wave that Biden unlocked between 2021 and 2025. The numbers at the southern border and in parole programs are staggering. Congressional and independent analyses converge on a picture in which more than 3M illegal entrants and parolees have been released into the US interior during Biden’s term, with over 1M admitted through parole programs that exist entirely at the discretion of the executive. None of these people has constitutional citizenship. Many do not even have statutory permanence. They are, in the vocabulary of immigration law, applicants for admission or parolees whose presence remains contingent on the continued goodwill of the political branches.

Here again, consular nonreviewability and allied doctrines allow Trump and Rubio to act without waiting on a dysfunctional Congress. Rubio can order the blanket revocation of all visas issued under specific Biden-era parole and mass entry schemes, from country-specific parole pipelines to family unification programs exploited as back doors by smugglers. Under existing law, a consular officer or the Secretary may revoke any visa or other documentation at any time, in his discretion, and that revocation is not subject to judicial second-guessing. Trump, using his separate authority under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, can simultaneously suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens whose presence he finds detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the Supreme Court has already upheld this tool in the face of intense establishment opposition.

The combined effect is immense. Millions of people who now possess some fragile foothold in the United States, a visa stamp, a parole letter, a transportation document, can be told that the experiment is over. Some will self-deport when they realize that their path to legal permanence has vanished. Others will remain and contest removal in court, which is their right under current law. But the psychological and legal signaling will change. Instead of a default assumption that anyone who manages to cross the border or board a flight will eventually be regularized, the message will be that admission and status are contingent, reversible, and tightly linked to conduct and loyalty.

All of this appears harsh only if one forgets the distinction with which we began. Constitutional citizenship, the status enjoyed by Beckstrom, Wolfe, and every American born or naturalized here, is permanent unless the individual chooses to renounce it or obtained it by lying at the threshold. It is a shield against arbitrary state power, and for that reason, conservatives should guard it jealously. Statutory citizenship, derivative nationality, humanitarian parole, asylum, visas, and green cards are different things altogether. They are legal privileges that Congress has created for policy reasons and that the executive administers in trust for the American people. When those privileges are abused, or when the conditions that justified them collapse, there is nothing unjust about taking them back.

The Biden administration treated Afghan parolees, Zero Unit fighters, and a wider universe of third-world entrants as if they possessed a kind of moral citizenship, a claim on American territory unmoored from our constitutional framework. It is now Trump and Rubio’s task to reassert the older understanding. Americans are not obligated to live next door to CIA-trained death squad members because a previous president panicked during a chaotic withdrawal. Afghan militants and their families should be required to make their case from outside our borders, under standards written with American security foremost in mind. Biden era visas, parole programs, and travel documents that invited millions into the interior should be revoked, not as an act of cruelty, but as a restatement of the basic principle that the American polity has the right to decide who joins it.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Fox’s McCarthy Warns Alleged Hegseth Strike Could Constitute War Crime