Heritage Foundation Report Rebuttal

Download PDF
Read our statement

Background

This page provides an analytical rebuttal to a January 2026 Heritage Foundation Backgrounder that alleges the U.S. government’s post-2021 relocation of Afghan allies “failed the national security test.” While presented as a security assessment, the Heritage report relies on selective sourcing, conflates legally distinct immigration pathways, and mischaracterizes both U.S. vetting processes and the Afghan population itself to advance a predetermined political conclusion. This response identifies where the report is factually inaccurate, analytically unsound, and misleading in ways that risk distorting policy decisions, undermining U.S. credibility with wartime allies, and weakening, rather than strengthening, national security and the rule of law.

This response does not claim that the 2021 evacuation or subsequent relocation efforts were flawless. It acknowledges operational strain, incomplete records, and isolated instances of fraud and criminal activity. What it rejects is the Heritage report’s assertion that these realities constitute systemic recklessness or national security failure, or that they justify collective suspicion, retroactive punishment, or abandonment of U.S. commitments.

Executive Summary

The Heritage report is not a neutral assessment of Afghan relocation. It is a polemic built on category errors, selective sourcing, and deliberate conflation of distinct programs to argue for a preordained policy outcome: ending Afghan admissions and retroactively criminalizing an entire population.

The report’s conclusions are further undermined by its evidentiary foundation. It relies heavily on advocacy organizations with an explicit policy agenda to reduce refugee and immigrant admissions, selectively quotes Inspector General findings while omitting their recommendations for reform, and treats individual law enforcement cases as proof of systemic failure without comparative data or proportional context. Its recommendations closely track policies that are already being pursued, including halting or constricting Afghan pathways and expanding re-review and enforcement tools but do not logically follow from the evidence cited and divert resources away from genuine security priorities.

The core claim, that Afghan relocation “failed the national security test,” is not supported by the evidence presented, nor by the government’s own data. Where failures occurred, they reflect capacity and resourcing gaps, not recklessness, and they are dwarfed by the overwhelming success of interagency screening, law enforcement action, and post-entry monitoring.

Most importantly, the report misrepresents who Afghans are, how vetting works, what parole is, and what national security risk actually looks like.

1. Heritage Conflates Distinct Populations to Inflate Risk

The report repeatedly treats all Afghans since 2021 as a single, undifferentiated group, collapsing:

  • SIV holders

  • Refugees admitted through USRAP

  • Humanitarian parolees under OAW

  • Afghans who arrived years earlier

  • Family reunification cases

  • Criminal defendants whose cases post-date entry

This conflation is not incidental. It is the primary mechanism by which the report inflates perceived risk and obscures how U.S. immigration and security systems actually function. This is analytically indefensible.

Each pathway has different legal standards, vetting processes, and authorities. Aggregating them allows Heritage to imply systemic failure without ever demonstrating one.

That is not analysis. It is narrative construction. 

2. Vetting Was Imperfect Because Reality Is Imperfect, Not Because It Was Abandoned

Heritage relies heavily on DHS OIG language describing “fragmented” or “ad hoc” processes. That language is real. The conclusion drawn from it is not.

What the report omits:

  • Every Afghan admitted underwent biometric screening, including fingerprints and photos.

  • All biometrics were run through U.S. intelligence, law enforcement, and counterterrorism databases multiple times, including post-entry.

  • The FBI, DHS, DOD, and intelligence community were continuously involved, and cases were denied or delayed when derogatory information emerged.

  • The system was designed to identify risk over time, not pretend omniscience on day one.

The standard Heritage implicitly demands, perfect information from a collapsed state with no records, is impossible in any humanitarian evacuation, including past U.S. operations Heritage never criticizes.

3. Enduring Welcome Was Designed to Correct Identified Gaps, Not Repeat Them

The Heritage report treats Enduring Welcome as a continuation of the chaotic conditions of the August 2021 evacuation. That characterization is inaccurate. Enduring Welcome was created precisely because the emergency evacuation exposed gaps in process, capacity, and coordination that required correction once immediate life-saving operations concluded.

Enduring Welcome represented a deliberate transition from crisis response to a structured, oversight-driven program. It was built with the benefit of Inspector General findings, interagency after-action reviews, and sustained congressional scrutiny. Its design incorporated additional safeguards intended to mitigate the very risks the Heritage report claims were ignored.

Key features of Enduring Welcome included:

Unlike the emergency evacuation, Enduring Welcome was not improvised. It was intentionally cautious, iterative, and compliance-focused. In practice, it became one of the most security-conscious legal immigration programs the United States has ever implemented, precisely because it was shaped by earlier shortcomings rather than dismissive of them.

The Heritage report omits this evolution entirely. By collapsing emergency evacuation conditions and post-crisis program design into a single narrative, it erases the reforms that materially improved security outcomes and misrepresents Enduring Welcome as permissive when it was, in fact, corrective.

4. The “January 1 Birthday” Argument Is a Red Herring

Heritage repeatedly cites incomplete biographic data as proof of insecurity. This misunderstands both Afghanistan and identity systems globally.

  • Many Afghans were born without formal birth registration.

  • January 1 is a placeholder, not a deception.

  • Biographic inconsistencies are why biometrics exist, and why the U.S. relied on them.

This is not evidence of vetting failure. It is evidence of why vetting uses multiple layers.

5. Crime and Terrorism Claims Are Misleading and Selectively Framed

The Heritage report substitutes anecdote for analysis, listing individual criminal cases without comparative data, historical baselines, or proportional context. What it does not say is more important.

  • The crime rate among Afghan evacuees is lower than comparable U.S. populations, including native-born Americans.

  • Every terrorism-related case cited was identified, investigated, and stopped by U.S. law enforcement, proving the system worked.

  • The report provides no denominator, no comparative baseline, and no statistical context.

Listing crimes without context is fear-mongering, not security analysis.

6. European Crime Statistics Are Misused and Irrelevant

Heritage relies on European arrest data to predict U.S. outcomes. 

This is methodologically flawed.

  • European countries admit migrants under entirely different legal, vetting, and integration regimes.

  • Policing, reporting, and charging standards differ dramatically.

  • U.S. Afghan arrivals were far more heavily screened than European asylum flows.

Using European data to argue U.S. policy is like using French traffic laws to evaluate American aviation safety.

7. Parole Is Being Mischaracterized by Design

The report treats parole as illegal mass migration. That is false.

  • Parole has been used by every administration of both parties, including for Cubans, Vietnamese, Ukrainians, and Hungarians.

  • Congress has repeatedly funded Afghan parole-based programs, signaling legislative acceptance.

  • Parole is not permanent status. It is a bridge to lawful pathways, which is exactly how it was used.

Heritage objects not to parole’s legality, but to who benefited from it.

8. Fraud Exists. Heritage Pretends It Is Unique to Afghans.

The report cites fraud cases and whistleblower claims. Fraud is real. It is also:

  • Present in every visa program worldwide.

  • Detected, prosecuted, and corrected through normal law enforcement mechanisms, as the report itself demonstrates.

  • A reason to resource oversight, not to abandon allies wholesale.

Using isolated fraud to justify collective punishment is not law enforcement. It is scapegoating.

9. The Attack on the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE) Is Ideological, Not Evidentiary

CARE is portrayed as corrupt and reckless. CARE was not an ideological project; it was an administrative necessity created to manage an unprecedented evacuation after Congress and multiple administrations failed for years to adequately resource SIV and refugee pipelines.

What Heritage ignores:

  • CARE existed because Congress and the Executive demanded a centralized coordination mechanism to follow through on commitments left unfulfilled across administrations.

  • CARE inherited decades of backlog and underinvestment in SIV processing.

  • CARE repeatedly tightened standards under pressure, often at the cost of leaving allies stranded.

Heritage’s objection is not mismanagement. It is the existence of a humanitarian mission at all.

10. “Resettle Them in the Region” Is Not a Serious Policy Proposal

Heritage’s recommendation to resettle Afghans in third countries ignores reality.

  • Pakistan, Iran, and Central Asia are deporting Afghans en masse.

  • Gulf states explicitly refuse permanent resettlement.

  • Regional instability increases, not reduces, security risk.

This proposal externalizes U.S. responsibility while pretending it improves security.

It does neither.

Conclusion

The Heritage report does not demonstrate that Afghan relocation failed a national security test.

It demonstrates something else entirely:

  • A refusal to accept uncertainty as inherent in real-world operations.

  • A preference for collective suspicion over individualized assessment.

  • An ideological commitment to restriction first, facts second.

The United States kept faith with allies, protected its security, and enforced its laws. Where gaps existed, they argue for better resourcing and oversight, not abandonment.

Walking away now would not make America safer. It would make America smaller.

Policymakers should respond to this moment by improving oversight, resourcing lawful pathways, and enforcing the law as written, not by embracing fear-driven narratives that confuse risk management with retreat.