Connect with us

International

Afghan Evacuee Added to CIS National Security Vetting Failures Database

Published

8 minute read

Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi displaying a pro-ISIS hand gesture common among ISIS militants. He posted this photo on a Tik Tok account while in Oklahoma, resulting in an account ban. Photo courtesy of an FBI complaint filed as part of his criminal court case.

From the Center for Immigration Studies

By Todd Bensman

Former CIA guard is charged with terrorism; assurances that he was vetted turn out to be untrue

An Afghan evacuee from the August 2021 fall of Kabul who stands charged with multiple terrorism offenses that include a mass-casualty firearms attack plot is the latest addition to the Center for Immigration Studies National Security Vetting Failures Database, bringing the total number of cases to 49.

In March 2023, the Center published the database collection to draw “remedial attention” to ongoing government vetting failures lest they “drift from the public mind and interest of lawmakers, oversight committee members, media, and homeland security practitioners who would otherwise feel compelled to demand process reforms”, according to an explanatory Center report titled “Learning from our Mistakes”.

The latest addition is Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, who worked in Afghanistan as an outside guard for a Central Intelligence Agency facility and was authorized for air evacuation from a third country a month after the August 2021 fall of Kabul to Dallas, Texas, on a hastily approved humanitarian parole.

He was among nearly 100,000 mostly Afghan evacuees, of whom about 77,000 were initially admitted into the United States via humanitarian parole through a program called Operation Allies Welcome. All became eligible for more permanent Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) mainly intended to protect Afghans who collaborated with U.S. military operations from reprisals by the Taliban group that seized control of the country.

After arriving in the United States on September 9, 2021, on humanitarian parole, Tawhedi settled with his wife and infant near Oklahoma City on an SIV. He initially worked as a Lyft driver in Dallas and later as an auto mechanic in Oklahoma.

Some 37 months after arriving, in October 2024, the FBI arrested the 27-year-old Tawhedi and a juvenile co-conspirator — Tawhedi’s brother-in-law — for an alleged plot to conduct an Election Day terrorist firearms attack in the United States on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization still active in Afghanistan. The unidentified co-conspirator, an Afghan, entered the United States in 2018 also on an SIV, but little else is known about his vetting processes.

Their plot involved liquidating a house and personal assets to fund the repatriation of Tawhedi’s wife and child to Afghanistan and weapons necessary for him and the juvenile to conduct a mass-casualty attack during which they would be killed, a criminal complaint alleged. The pair obtained semi-automatic rifles and ammunition for the attack, although by then FBI undercover agents had penetrated the plot.

Shortly after the arrests, U.S. government officials claimed that Tawhedi was “thoroughly” vetted three times: first to work for the CIA in Afghanistan, then “recurrently” by DHS for the humanitarian parole status allowing him to fly into the United States, and then for the Special Immigrant Visa once he was settled, probably sometime in 2022.

No red flags turned up, they asserted, without providing evidence.

“Afghan evacuees who sought to enter the United States were subject to multilayered screening and vetting against intelligence, law enforcement and counterterrorism information. If new information emerges after arrival, appropriate action is taken,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox News Digital in October 2024.

But within weeks of making those assertions, U.S. officials reversed course and acknowledged that Tawhedi did not undergo the previously claimed vetting. The State Department, in fact, never vetted or approved Tawhedi, nor had he been very thoroughly vetted for his CIA guard post job in Afghanistan, they said. DHS did not “thoroughly” vet Tawhedi for humanitarian parole on a recurring basis as initially claimed about all Afghan evacuees, either, before allowing him to fly from the unknown third country into the United States.

The screening process for Afghan evacuees in the program includes probing for any possible ties to terrorism, ISIS, or the Taliban using databases the U.S. compiled over 20 years in Afghanistan that include data from applicant electronic devices, biometrics, and other sources.

It’s unclear when Tawhedin radicalized in ways that might have been detected. U.S. officials initially told U.S. media they believed that happened only after he was admitted into the United States. In court records, the FBI says Tawhedi’s initial crime — sending $540 in cryptocurrency to ISIS — occurred in March 2024. But his ties and extremist proclivities almost certainly predated the currency transfer.

Had Tawhedi been thoroughly vetting when he was supposed to be, red flags were more likely than not available to be found both before and after he arrived in the U.S.

For instance, adjudicators might have found pre-existing extremist ideological proclivities within Tawhedi’s immediate family because two brothers evacuated to France also were arrested in September 2024 for a terrorism plot there to attack a French soccer match or shopping center, according to numerous media accounts and information that surfaced during an October 2024 Oklahoma City federal court hearing. (The French and Americans collaborated on both cases).

Furthermore, court records reveal that Tawhedi maintained relationships with well-known ISIS figures that were sufficiently trusting to have enabled direct communications with them by phone and on encrypted apps.

In fact, Tawhedi trusted these operatives to care for his repatriated wife and child after he was killed in the U.S. attack and to gift substantial remaining funds from the sale of the Oklahoma house. Lastly, an FBI investigator in the October 2024 court complaint indicated that most extended family members in Tawhedi’s Oklahoma circle were aware of the plot, approved, and could still be charged as co-conspirators as of that time.

The fact that many family members in the U.S. and abroad felt this way about Tawhedi’s plans further indicates that their extremism pre-dated U.S. entry and might have red-flagged during face-to-face interviews, database checks, and other standard security vetting practices.

Underscoring the admitted Tawhedi vetting failure, a September 2022 DHS Office of Inspector General report found, in part, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection “admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States” and that, “As a result, DHS may have admitted or paroled individuals into the United States who pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Hong Kong-Canadian Groups Demand PM Carney Drop Liberal Candidate Over “Bounty” Remark Supporting CCP Repression

Published on

Sam Cooper

Thirteen Hong Kong-Canadian organizations are calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal Party to immediately revoke the candidacy of MP Paul Chiang, alleging he “may have violated Canadian laws” after making explosive remarks that appeared to endorse a Chinese Communist Party bounty targeting a Toronto-area Conservative candidate.

The controversy centers on Chiang’s comments during a January meeting with Chinese-language media in Toronto, where the Markham–Unionville Liberal incumbent said, “If you can take him to the Chinese Consulate General in Toronto, you can get the million-dollar reward,” referring to Joe Tay, the Conservative candidate in Don Valley North who is wanted by Hong Kong authorities for running a pro-democracy YouTube channel in Canada.

The response from Mark Carney’s Liberals appears increasingly conflicted, especially in light of remarks made last year by the party’s top foreign affairs official concerning Chinese transnational repression targeting Hong Kong immigrants in Canada.

Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly issued a warning in December, stating: “This attempt by Hong Kong authorities to conduct transnational repression abroad, including by issuing threats, intimidation or coercion against Canadians or those in Canada, will not be tolerated.”

Tay had remained silent since the revelations broke Friday. But on Sunday evening, he made his first public statement in a post on X.

“This is the most challenging time in our lifetime, and we must give it everything we’ve got to protect this place we call home. A fourth term for the Liberals is not an option,” Tay wrote.

About the same time, Paul Chiang posted his own statement on social media, offering a direct apology to Tay.

“Today, I spoke with Joseph Tay, the Conservative candidate for Don Valley North, to personally apologize for the comments that I made this past January. It was a terrible lapse of judgement. I recognize the severity of the statement and I am deeply disappointed in myself. As a 28-year police veteran, I have always strived to treat people with respect and dignity. In this case, I failed to meet that standard. I know better and it will never happen again.”

Despite the apology, a Carney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday that the party would not remove Chiang from the ballot.

Now, leading Hong Kong Canadian advocacy groups are intensifying pressure, saying Chiang’s comments amount to a tacit endorsement of Beijing’s foreign repression network — a growing concern for Canadian authorities, especially after Ottawa’s diplomatic expulsion of a Chinese official last year over threats to MP Michael Chong’s family.

“The integrity of Canada’s democratic elections has been damaged,” the groups wrote in a joint statement. “Paul Chiang’s actions may have violated Canadian laws, including the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act and the Canada Elections Act.”

Meanwhile, as the chorus of political condemnation grew beyond criticism from Conservative Party leaders, NDP MP Jenny Kwan — herself a victim of targeted Chinese interference, according to testimony at the Hogue Commission — stood with NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and several candidates in Vancouver and addressed the Chiang scandal directly.

“He is a police officer, and he ought to know that when the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] went out and put a bounty on anybody, including Canadians, that cannot be acceptable. That is intimidation at its worst,” Kwan said.

“And yet, he played right into it. He advocated for people to bring [Tay] to the Chinese consulate to collect the bounty. In what universe is this normal?”

Kwan added the remarks are especially damaging while Canada is facing “active, sophisticated foreign interference activities targeting Canada’s democratic institutions.”

The Hong Kong Canadian groups described Chiang’s apology as “insincere” and “a tactic to downplay the seriousness of his outrageous comments.” They argue that any politician “truly sympathetic to oppressed Hongkongers” would never suggest delivering a Canadian citizen to a hostile foreign government’s diplomatic outpost.

“Chiang’s remarks legitimize foreign interference and potentially threaten Tay’s safety,” the statement reads. “This is not just about an offhand comment — it’s about whether our elected officials are willing to stand up to transnational repression or not.”

The joint release also cites findings from a national survey showing that 85.4% of Hongkonger-Canadian respondents are deeply concerned about transnational repression and infiltration in Canada, while 40.9% reported reducing public political engagement due to safety fears.

“Chiang’s remarks exemplify how foreign interference continues to cast a shadow over Hong Kong immigrants’ lives in Canada,” the groups said, emphasizing that more than 60% of respondents are alarmed by Canada’s handling of relations with China, particularly the influence of Chinese diplomatic institutions operating within Canadian borders.

“The Liberal Party must send a clear message that intimidation or threats against political candidates will not be tolerated,” the statement continues. “Canadians — particularly those who fled authoritarian regimes — deserve a democracy free from foreign interference.”

The Bureau has contacted the Liberal Party for further comment. This is a developing story. More to follow.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Support a public interest startup.

We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on

logo

By

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
Continue Reading

Trending

X