OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Report Finds 40 Percent Vetting Errors in Biden Afghan Migrants

3 sources · updated 2026-09-30
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General reviewed a statistically random sample of 678 asylum applications out of 13,682 adjudicated for Afghan evacuees resettled in the United States under Operation Allies Welcome after the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Investigators found documentation and vetting errors in roughly 40 percent of the sampled files, including 303 missed aliases, 23 missing security checks, 45 unresolved records, and more than 100 other documentation issues. Two cases involved incomplete paperwork related to potential terrorism-related inadmissibility. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow agreed with the inspector general’s five recommendations while stating that broader screening and vetting systems were already in place. The review found no statistically significant rise in the error rate after a September 2023 court settlement that required faster processing of those asylum claims.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles

3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: DHS Office of Inspector General, Joseph Cuffari and Mark Krikorian
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: inspector general report, official report
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 14:14 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Wire (inspector general report).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT. Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story — the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage has not reported this audit. Right-leaning coverage says a DHS inspector general sample found errors in 40% of Afghan Operation Allies Welcome asylum files. That review included two cases of possible terrorism-related inadmissibility. The inspector general did not determine whether any error affected eligibility or created a security threat, a caveat Daily Wire includes. A reader of only left-leaning outlets would not know the review happened. Right-leaning outlets also part ways on what to put around the audit. Prior reports on Afghan evacuee security flags lead Breitbart's account, which also skips the agency's reply. The USCIS director's claim that other safeguards "minimize the impact of these errors" appears in Daily Wire, which stays on this review. Were either of those terrorism-related applicants granted asylum?
Bottom line

Left-leaning outlets have published nothing on the DHS inspector general's Afghan asylum-file audit, so the 40% error rate is circulating only on the right.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A DHS inspector general sample of 678 Afghan OAW asylum applications found errors in 40% of files numberin New York Post, Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The review identified two cases involving potential inadmissibility on terrorism-related grounds official statementin New York Post, Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Investigators found 303 missed aliases in the sampled applications numberin New York Post, Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The sample came from 13,682 adjudicated applications from the OAW Afghan evacuee population numberin Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The inspector general found no statistically significant increase in the error rate after the September 2023 DHS settlement official statementin New York Post, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • USCIS Director Joseph Edlow agreed with all five recommendations and said existing safeguards minimize the impact of the errors official statementin New York Post, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Right View
The New York Post, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart reported the DHS inspector general findings as evidence of vetting failures in the Biden-era Afghan resettlement program. They highlighted the roughly 40 percent error rate in the sample, missed aliases that the IG said may have prevented matches to derogatory information, and two files with potential terrorism-related paperwork problems. Coverage tied the audit to Operation Allies Welcome, which resettled more than 70,000 Afghans, and to prior Republican criticism of the 2021 withdrawal. Outlets noted USCIS’s agreement with the recommendations and Edlow’s claim that administrative errors occurred alongside existing safeguards. Breitbart additionally cited earlier IG reports, congressional inquiries, and other alleged OAW security cases.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it is grounded in a named DHS Office of Inspector General review with a defined sample, specific error counts, and an official USCIS response, not one party’s uncorroborated word. Established facts include the documented error types and USCIS’s agreement with five recommendations. The IG did not find that the errors changed asylum eligibility or produced a confirmed security incident in the sampled cases; the two terrorism-related files are incomplete-paperwork findings, not confirmed admissions of terrorists. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the full IG report, USCIS’s corrective-action timeline, and any follow-up on whether those two files were resolved.

3 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.