America’s Vetting Blind Spot: Why Background Checks Can’t Stop the Next Attack

The man who killed Specialist Sarah Beckstrom passed every vetting system we have. Not because he was clever, but because those systems only look backward. We can check fingerprints, histories, watchlists, and intelligence databases, yet we still miss the early behaviors that lead to violence. A background check will not stop the next attack, because violence never begins with a criminal record. It begins with subtle, measurable shifts in behavior that appear long before a weapon or a threat. Until we build a capability that identifies those early signs, we will keep reacting to tragedies instead of preventing them.

After the attack involving Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the national conversation shifted. The focus moved beyond blame, beyond who did or did not flag something, and settled on a deeper truth. Our current vetting systems cannot detect the earliest and most important indicators of risk. They can document a person’s past. They can verify identity. They can confirm who someone used to be. But they cannot measure who a person is becoming.

When the President Trump directed federal agencies to strengthen vetting and provide measurable answers, it highlighted a gap that has existed for decades. America does not need more layers of forms, new procedures, or theoretical enhancements. It needs a true capability, one that can identify when someone begins to escalate long before they pose a direct threat.

This is not prediction. It is measurement. And it is the missing piece in our national security framework.

The Challenge: We are Using Backward-Facing Tools in a Forward-Facing Threat Environment

Every major federal department with responsibility for vetting relies on tools shaped around what is already known. Criminal databases. Intelligence repositories. Biometrics. Watchlists. Interviews. These tools matter, but they depend almost entirely on past behavior to anticipate future risk.

That approach fails when an individual has:

• No criminal history
• No intelligence flags
• No known extremist ties
• No previous actions that would raise concern

Tens of thousands of individuals who supported U.S. forces abroad fall into this category. The vast majority pose no risk. A very small percentage develop grievances or ideological shifts over time. An even smaller number translate those grievances into action.

Do we send all of them back to Afghanistan for fear of the few?

Our current vetting structure cannot distinguish between these groups because it assumes the past dictates the future. The most recent attack makes it clear that someone with a spotless past can still move toward violence if their current behavior begins to change.

Right now, we have no systematic way to measure that change.

Where the Real Indicators of Risk Appear: In Early Behavior, Not Backgrounds

Behavior changes long before violence occurs. That is the core insight behind a behavioral-based vetting capability.

Aggression does not begin with a threat, a manifesto, or a weapon. It begins with subtle, observable shifts:

• Frustration that grows instead of resolves
• Withdrawal from community or support networks
• Contempt replacing conversation
• Rising hostility or rigidity
• Reduced coping capacity
• Fixation on grievances
• A move from assertiveness to dominance
• A need to assign blame
• Inability to manage internal triggers

People around the individual often notice these signs. What they lack is a structured, validated way to interpret what they see.

This is where a measurable behavioral capability fills the gap. It gives meaning to the small early indicators that do not predict anything by themselves but reveal everything when understood through a scientific framework.

Understanding Stage 1: The First Point Aggression Becomes Measurable

Two measurable transitions appear at Stage 1 on the Primal & Cognitive Aggression Continua.

Cognitive Aggression begins the moment a person shifts from assertive behavior to aggressive behavior. Assertiveness is healthy. It is direct, confident, respectful of boundaries, and part of effective communication. Assertive people can disagree, challenge ideas, advocate for themselves, and express frustration without harming trust or shutting others down.

Aggression is something very different. It is a maladaptive response. It pushes, pressures, dominates, dismisses, or undermines. It damages trust and signals that a person has stopped collaborating and started positioning. Their interpretation of events becomes personal, rigid, and centered on grievance.

Many people today talk about “good aggression” and “bad aggression,” as if aggression were a neutral tool that can be used wisely or poorly. That idea is simply wrong. It shows up in sports, business, and even leadership training when people say, “Go out and be aggressive.” What they usually mean is “Go out and be assertive,” but the language is off target, and the misunderstanding causes real problems.

Aggression is never a healthy or productive option. It always reflects a shift in internal state. It means the person is no longer coping with their triggers and is beginning to interact with others in a way that elevates risk, even if only slightly at first.

This is not “good aggression” turning into “bad aggression.” That distinction does not exist. Aggression itself is the maladaptive response. The moment someone crosses that line from assertiveness to aggression is the first reliable indicator that they have entered Stage 1 on the Cognitive Aggression Continuum. It is the point where behavior becomes measurable in a way scientific observation can confirm.

It is also the first evidence that you have an opportunity to prevent any further escalation and the potential for violence. If you want measurement, evidence-based results, and true best practices, this is where they begin. The ability to recognize Stage 1 behavior is the foundation of every successful preventive strategy.

Primal Aggression emerges alongside this shift when the individual stops coping with internal triggers. Their physiological responses change. Their voice, posture, pacing, and movement reflect tension or agitation. This early loss of coping is measurable and often precedes any verbal expression of hostility.

Together, these early cognitive and physiological signs form the first observable evidence that escalation has begun. If a Stage 1 individual is engaged and redirected at this point, the escalation process stops. They do not progress into Stage 2, Stage 5, or Stage 9.

Why This Matters for Immigration, Resettlement, and Federal Vetting

Vetting today depends largely on who a person was, not who they are becoming. A clean background check only confirms that someone did not do something in the past. It tells us nothing about whether their behavior today is shifting toward aggression.

Federal agencies urgently need a way to observe:

• When an individual begins disconnecting from their community
• When frustration turns into simmering hostility
• When coping collapses and anger becomes the baseline
• When grievances turn into personal narratives
• When rigid ideology replaces flexible thinking
• When assertive statements become aggressive posture
• When emotional triggers begin driving behavior
• When someone starts progressing along the Aggression Continua

These shifts often appear months before harm occurs. But our current systems are not designed to notice them, let alone interpret them.

Privacy is Protected and Strengthened

Enhancing vetting raises understandable concerns about civil liberties. The good news is that a behavioral-based capability avoids the most common pitfalls. It does not touch private medical information, mental health evaluations, psychological diagnoses, or anything tied to protected classes.

The strength of a behavioral-based approach is that it avoids every category restricted by privacy law. It does not use culture, gender, age, education level, sexual orientation, religion, disability, mental health assessments, or psychological evaluations. Because it excludes all protected information, it does not trigger HIPAA, FERPA, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the European Union’s GDPR. The focus is strictly on observable behavior, which is what makes this capability both effective and fully compliant with the strongest privacy standards in the world.

It does not examine:

• Race
• Gender
• Religion
• National origin
• Age
• Disabilities
• Sexual orientation
• Mental health status

Focusing strictly on outward, observable behavior keeps agencies inside the boundaries of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Civil Rights Act, and all related regulations. By avoiding protected information entirely, agencies gain a measurable way to identify genuine emerging risk without violating privacy or engaging in profiling.

Why Timing Matters: Aggression Advances in Stages

Aggression escalates through predictable stages. The further someone progresses, the more dangerous they become and the more their quality of judgment deteriorates. Waiting until someone meets the threshold of a direct threat is too late. At that point, law enforcement tools are limited and communities are exposed.

Early engagement offers:

• Lower risk
• Better outcomes
• More equitable treatment
• Clearer decision-making
• Stronger national security
• Greater public trust

Late engagement often brings only containment and aftermath.

This is why early-stage detection must become part of the vetting architecture.

A Capability That Complements Existing Systems

A behavioral capability does not replace background checks or intelligence tools. It completes them.

1. Intelligence identifies known threats.
2. Background checks identify past threats.
3. Behavioral measurement identifies emerging threats.

Together, they form a comprehensive vetting system.

Implementation Can Begin Immediately

Because this capability is behavioral, it can be applied:

• In interviews
• During resettlement
• Through community integration
• During periodic check-ins
• In federal facilities
• Across DHS, State, and DoD operations

It requires no intrusive data collection and no new authorities. It requires only that personnel be trained to recognize measurable indicators and respond appropriately.

The Path Forward

The current administration has asked for measurable answers. Agencies now face choices. They can continue relying on backward-looking systems, or they can adopt a capability that finally closes the gap.

We do not need to guess who might become dangerous. We need to measure what is happening now.

We have the science. We have the framework. The capability exists. The question is whether we will use it.