In a concerning development for U.S. national security, eight Islamic terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State (ISIS) have been apprehended in the United States. These individuals, originating from Tajikistan—a country with a 96.4% Muslim population—illegally crossed into the U.S. and were vetted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Despite the vetting process, “no derogatory information was found,” allowing these individuals to initially evade detection.
The arrests primarily occurred in the New York area, including Philadelphia and Los Angeles on the West Coast of the United States. This incident raises significant concerns, given the geographical and ideological connections to past terrorist activities. Tajikistan is located approximately 240 miles from Kyrgyzstan, the birthplace of the Tsarnaev brothers, who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.
Furthermore, the arrests primarily occurred in left-wing sanctuary cities. The New York and West Coast areas contain several sanctuary cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. These cities have policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, which might have contributed to these terrorists operating within their jurisdictions. New York City and other sanctuary cities have long-standing policies designed to protect illegals by not assisting federal immigration enforcement in certain cases.
Systemic Failures in Addressing Islamic Terrorism
This incident highlights the persistent threat posed by foreign terrorist organizations and the lack of preparedness by U.S. security agencies to prevent Islamic terrorists from entering the country. FBI Director Christopher Wray has acknowledged the significant risk posed by individuals crossing the border illegally, stating that these threats are consuming FBI resources not only in border states but across the entire country. However, Wray does not address the lack of training on Islam that law enforcement agencies receive or how the agencies themselves have been infiltrated by Islamic terror-tied groups who have forced the agency to remove necessary training of officers on the threat Islam poses.
Inadequate Training and Politicization of Law Enforcement
Robert Mueller and Obama purged the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of all training materials offensive to Muslims. When Mueller was head of the FBI (2001 to 2013), he worked with groups linked to Islamic terror-tied organizations to remove all mention of Islam and Jihad from counterterror training materials. This hamstrung agents’ ability to understand the motives and goals of jihad terrorists and to counter them effectively.
As FBI director, Mueller bent over backward to please radical Islamic groups and caved into their demands. Judicial Watch reported that the agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various Muslim organizations, including those with documented ties to terrorism. Among them were two Muslim organizations—the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case. CAIR is a terrorist front group with extensive links to foreign and domestic jihadis. It was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad, and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine.
Records obtained as part of a Judicial Watch lawsuit show that Mueller, who served 12 years as FBI chief, met with the Muslim organizations on February 8, 2012, to hear their demands. Shortly later, the director assured the Islamic groups that he had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices nationwide. The purge was part of a broader Islamic operation designed to influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments, and the public at large. The records obtained by Judicial Watch also show similar incidents of Islamic influence operations at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House.
Meanwhile, as RAIR has previously pointed out, law enforcement agencies have become politicized under Democrat rule, leading to the targeting of non-violent dissidents. The case of these foreign radicals entering the country and not being flagged despite being interviewed contrasts sharply with the FBI’s intensive pursuit of individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol incident. While individuals who merely stepped foot in the Capitol—most being non-violent and carrying American flags—have faced rigorous investigations, relentless targeting, and prison time, Islamic terrorists can invade our country and be given sanctuary in our cities.
Historical Oversights and Missed Opportunities
This disparity is particularly evident in light of past incidents where the FBI had prior interactions with Muslims who later committed acts of terror, such as Major Hasan in Fort Hood, Omar Mateen in Orlando, Esteban Santiago in Fort Lauderdale, and the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston. Each of these cases resulted in tragic loss of life and raised concerns about missed opportunities for prevention.
The ongoing situation poses a critical question: What is the threshold for action against figures like Jibril, who, unlike the January 6 participants, actively calls for Jihad and has a documented history of inspiring lethal Islamic terrorist attacks? The approach to monitoring and intervening in cases of Islamic extremism, as opposed to other forms of perceived threats, appears inconsistent and demands reevaluation.
Homeland Threat Assessment and Border Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently released the 2024 Homeland Threat Assessment (HTA), which highlights the dynamic threat environment, noting that while sustained counterterrorism efforts have degraded foreign terrorist groups’ capabilities, organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS are actively seeking to rebuild and maintain networks capable of targeting the U.S. homeland. The increase in individuals on terrorist watchlists encountered at the border—from 11 to 294 in recent years—further illustrates the escalating risk and the urgent need for comprehensive border security measures.
Americans remain under extreme threat if our agencies are not properly educated about the potential risks posed by Islamic individuals entering the United States and how to effectively vet them. Furthermore, our agencies have been compromised by Islamic terror-tied groups and are being used by leftists to target political opponents. Instead of focusing on real threats, the FBI and DHS are now preoccupied with addressing the alleged dangers of ‘Islamophobia’ and targeting Trump supporters and conservative parent groups. The need for effective law enforcement that protects against Islamic terrorists without politically targeting Americans is more pressing than ever.
