LIVE ON TV, TRUMP SCRAMBLES AS ASYLUM SCANDAL EXPLODES NATIONWIDE — THE WHITE HOUSE SPIRALS WHILE DC REELS FROM THE SHOOTING ⚡

In a shocking turn that transformed an already chaotic news cycle into a political stage disaster, the White House spent Thursday night battling a self-inflicted crisis that exploded from Washington, D.C., to every corner of American social media. The revelation — that President DONALD TRUMP’S ADMINISTRATION had approved asylum in April 2025 for the suspect believed to be behind the shooting of two National Guard members — landed like a grenade tossed into an ongoing national argument about immigration, security, and presidential blame-shifting.

With the country still rattled after the midday attack, the President stepped before cameras insisting that none of this was his fault. In a performance that felt part defensive briefing, part late-night comedy sketch, Trump pinned responsibility squarely on the “Biden people,” arguing that the Afghan national entered in 2021 and that “nobody knew anything” about him. The problem — for Trump, for his administration, and for anyone watching with access to basic timelines — was that the official asylum approval came under Trump, not Biden. It was signed, stamped, and granted in April of this year.

Even veteran reporters looked stunned.

The suspect, identified as Ramanula Lakanawal, 29, arrived in the United States in 2021 as part of Operation Allies Refuge, the program designed to evacuate Afghan partners during the U.S. withdrawal. He underwent multiple rounds of vetting, settled in Washington State, and, like thousands of others, entered a bureaucratic limbo that would later force him to apply for asylum. That application, processed after Trump took office and after immigration vetting standards were reshuffled, was approved this spring. And now, amid a climate of heightened fear and militarized tension around the nation’s capital, the President is trying to erase the signature on the paperwork.

But the problem is that everyone else can see it.

Inside the federal agencies, officials say, the chaos was predictable. For months civil servants had warned that Trump’s reassignment of FBI counterterrorism teams — redirecting them toward mass roundups of undocumented workers in restaurants, farms, and grocery store parking lots — was hollowing out the very departments designed to prevent attacks like the one seen Thursday. Former DHS analysts, speaking under condition of anonymity, described the department as “scrambling to do three jobs with half a staff,” while one insider claimed the administration had “prioritized political optics over national-level risk.”

It is a pointed accusation, but evidence has been accumulating. Trump’s appointment of an inexperienced former grocery clerk and landscaper, Thomas Fugate, to oversee counterterrorism prevention had already raised eyebrows across Washington’s security community. “It was the kind of résumé you’d expect for a summer internship,” one former FBI official said — “not the most sensitive domestic extremism post in the federal government.”

Thursday’s events made those internal warnings feel prophetic.

And yet, on cue, the President’s reliable media ecosystem rushed to deflect. Within minutes of the suspect’s nationality becoming public, anchors on Trump-aligned networks insisted that Democrats — particularly Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin — bore moral responsibility, arguing that their criticism of Trump’s disputed military deployments had somehow encouraged an attack on the National Guard. The fact that these statements had no connection to the asylum decision did not slow the narrative’s momentum.

But not everyone was willing to play along. When one commentator on Fox suggested that sending an additional 500 National Guard troops into Washington might escalate tensions, the host snapped, visibly irritated, cutting him off mid-sentence. The theme of the night, across these broadcasts, was unmistakable: the suspect’s Afghan origin meant the story must be bent toward Biden, regardless of who held the pen that approved the paperwork.

In Congress, Democrats responded by urging restraint. Representative Chris Deluzio — himself among those Trump had recently accused of undermining the military — reminded viewers that the facts were still emerging and that political opportunism within an hour of a shooting was “dangerous rhetoric.” Meanwhile, analysts online called the administration’s shifting explanations “a masterclass in political gymnastics,” with one viral post noting, “Trump wants credit for every security success but responsibility for none of the decisions.”

By late evening the administration was in full damage-control mode, insisting that a pre-Trump legislative extension muddled the status. But immigration experts quickly disputed that interpretation, emphasizing that asylum approval is an affirmative act — not an automatic rollover.

The broader question now looming over Washington is not merely who failed, but what this failure reveals about a presidency increasingly defined by improvisation, showmanship, and reactive governance. For a White House that has often turned crisis into spectacle, Thursday’s tragedy brought into view the dangerous gap between political theater and the sober machinery of national security.

And as the investigation continues, one thing seems certain: the fallout will stretch far beyond the immediate tragedy. Online debates are already erupting across platforms, insiders are whispering about internal fractures inside DHS, and the administration is bracing for congressional investigations.

The internet can’t stop talking — and this story is only getting louder.