Former Taliban Envoy Detained at U.S. Airport Raises Concerns Over Immigration Policies

Mohammad Rahim Wahidi, a lawful permanent resident, was detained upon re-entering the U.S., igniting discussions about national security and immigrant rights amid controversial border policies.

Former Taliban Ambassador Mohammad Rahim Wahidi was detained by U.S. immigration officials at Washington Dulles International Airport for over 30 hours after returning to the country this past Saturday. His lawyer, Hassan Ahmad, alleges that Wahidi’s detention is an example of the Trump administration's use of the Immigration and Nationality Act to categorize individuals as national security risks arbitrarily.

Wahidi is a lawful permanent resident, while his wife, Mary Shakeri-Wahidi, is a U.S. citizen. The legal justification for his detention reportedly stems from concerns surrounding his brother-in-law, wanted by the U.S. for involvement in an assassination plot against an Iranian journalist. Contrarily, Wahidi himself was stripped of his diplomatic title in Spain due to unfiled allegations of sexual assault, suggesting a complex history that complicates his current situation.

In recent months, similar legal grounds have been invoked by the Trump administration to revoke the visas of several students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests, which authorities alleged could have negative foreign policy repercussions. This case demonstrates a stark contrast, as Wahidi’s detention does not involve public protests but rather ties to alleged criminal activity by a family member.

Upon landing from a Turkish Airlines flight, Wahidi was taken into custody and interrogated by unidentified agents, thought to be from the FBI, without legal representation. Following his lawyer's petition for release, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema did not grant immediate relief but prohibited transferring Wahidi to another facility.

This ruling contrasts sharply with the treatment of student activists, who typically find themselves relocated to remote ICE detention centers following arrest. The ruling does, however, require adherence to CBP standards regarding short-term custody and access to legal counsel during his ongoing proceedings.

The case continues to unfold, raising questions about the broader implications of national security assessments on lawful residents within the United States and revealing the intricate interplay between immigration enforcement and political dissent.