“We have to make sure that the people that enter into our country want to support our country, not want to attack our country,” Rosendale said in an interview. He said he plans to urge fellow Republican Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte to reject refugees housed in his state without proof of vetting.

The White House is moving swiftly to try and tamp down any backlash, and avoid the sort of politicization and outrage that plagued efforts to resettle Syrian refugees in 2015 and created havoc in the federal refugee program.

Administration officials say they have been working behind the scenes to brief local and state leaders on how extensively refugees are vetted before they step foot on American soil. Refugee organizations, which are working with the administration, are doing the same in communities. And both are conducting media outreach to try and dispel myths on the resettlement process.

Biden had planned to meet virtually Thursday with governors who had offered to temporarily house or help resettle Afghans but scrapped the event after 13 U.S. troops were killed in a terrorist bombing in Kabul. The next day, the White House announced Biden named the Department of Homeland Security the lead agency coordinating the relocation of evacuated Afghans to the U.S.

A senior administration official said Afghans “undergo robust security” that includes “biometric and biographic security screenings conducted by our intelligence, law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals who are working quite literally around the clock” to vet Afghans before they’re allowed in the United States. In many cases, the refugees are taken to a third country, such as Qatar or Kuwait, where they undergo additional screening.

Officials at organizations working with Afghans say some of the refugees already had started the process of securing a visa and were close to being vetted. The background check generally takes 12 to 24 months.

Already, thousands of Afghan refugees have made their way to the United States, settling across the country in large numbers in California, Texas and Virginia, areas that already had existing populations of Afghans.

The State Department had previously identified 19 “welcoming” communities where Afghans could settle based on local support, resources, including house, and cost of living. Only one of those communities has a Republican leader.

Organizations helping refugees and members of Congress say that list has been expanded in the days since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan’s capital and Afghans rushed to the airport to evacuate.

Since Aug. 14, the U.S. has helped more than 114,400 people evacuate Afghanistan, including about 5,000 Americans, according to the White House.

Administration officials believe about 80,000 Afghans are eligible to come to the U.S. But the prospect of them coming has sparked a wave of preemptive criticism from certain quarters of conservative circles. Steve Cortes, a former Trump adviser, tweeted an image of a planeload of refugees leaving Afghanistan with the words, “Raise your hand if you want this plane landing in your town? America paid unimaginable costs in Afghanistan because of uniparty globalists who dominated the Bush & Obama administrations.” And FOX News host Tucker Carlson declared that “first we invade & then we’re invaded.”

“What I find is that a lot of Congress people or people like Trump think it’s useful to get their base riled up but it’s not really representative of what’s actually happening in the community,” said Jennifer Sime, senior vice president of resettlement, asylum and integration at the International Rescue Committee, working with Afghans. “The lower you go in terms of the communities, the more support you start seeing.Once you get to the level of a mayor, you start seeing a lot more support.”

The White House has acknowledged the politics of bringing refugees to the U.S. will be tricky. “We also know that there are some people in this country, even some in Congress, who may not want to have people from another country come as refugees to the United States. That’s a reality,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who dealt with similar backlash while serving in the State Department during the Obama administration. “We can’t stop or prevent that on our own … And we’re going to continue to convey clearly that this is … part of the fabric of the United States and not back away from that.”

A similar controversy took place six years ago when Republicans fought President Barack Obama’s plan to resettle 10,000 refugees from Syria during that country’s civil war.

Thirty governors, all Republicans except one, tried to ban refugees from that country from entering their states. After the federal government said the state could not stop the refugee resettlement, lawmakers introduced a bill in Congress that would restrict Syrians nationwide.

Obama lashed out at them. “We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic,” he said at the time. “We don’t make good decisions if it’s based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks.”

But the attacks on refugees fueled right-wing populism both in the U.S. and abroad, serving as one of the pillars of Trump’s successful run for the presidency in 2016.

“We can only imagine how many thousands of terrorists have been airlifted out of Afghanistan and into neighborhoods around the world. What a terrible failure,” Trump wrote in a statement that came this week but echoed those he’s issued in the past. “NO VETTING. How many terrorists will Joe Biden bring to America? We don’t know!”

Some refugee organizations say it’s different this year because many refugees are Afghans who helped the U.S. military over the last two decades, along with their families.

“I think that it has tapped into a sentiment or a sense of loyalty,” said Bill Canny, executive director of Migration and Refugee Services of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, working with Afghans. “Loyalty is just an incredibly important trait.”

Only 16 House Republicans voted against a bill to increase special visas for Afghans who assisted the U.S. They did so, in part, because they say they do not trust a Democratic administration to properly vet them. Additionally, some Republican governors, including those leading the deep red state of Arkansas, Utah and Oklahoma, have said they welcome Afghans, in contrast to some of the more Trump-allied figures in the party.

On the other side of the aisle, more than 65 House Democrats are now calling on Biden to increase the annual refugee admissions cap to no less than 200,000 for fiscal year 2022 — up from BIden’s pledge of 125,000 — given the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere. “To those questioning if it is really our responsibility to provide refuge for those fleeing conflict, persecution, or dire living conditions — yes, it is. In fact, it is not only our responsibility, but it is our greatest strength,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter.

The U.S. is focused on bringing Afghan allies to the U.S. who worked with the military, many as translators, as well as other vulnerable Afghans the U.S. has identified, the senior administration official said. Some are being granted Special Immigrant Visas and others are being granted “humanitarian parole” because they otherwise don’t have legal permission to enter the U.S.

Many refugees are being flown into Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C. and housed at designated military bases for no more than 30 days, refugee organizations and Capitol Hill aides say.

The Pentagon had designated four bases — Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, Fort Lee in Virginia, Fort Bliss in Texas and Fort McCoy in Wisconsin — to help house and process refugees. But more are being added, including Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. Dulles Expo Center, an exhibition facility for consumer shows and trade events, was also added, lawmakers say.

At the military bases, refugees receive assistance with their paperwork and orientation on American culture while refugee organizations search for a location to settle them. Refugee organizations say they consult with local officials, school districts, health authorities and faith-based organizations to assess which community may be the best fit.

The new residents also are tested for Covid — and isolated if they test positive. Some are starting to receive a Covid vaccine. A mass vaccination site has been opened at the Dulles Expo Center and a second will open near the Philadelphia International Airport.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), whose office is trying to help 5,000 Afghans come to the U.S., criticized Republicans for what he called their hypocrisy over the situation in Afghanistan.

“If you believe we had a moral obligation or any kind of obligation in the 20-year struggle in Afghanistan,” he said, “then by extension and logic, you’ve got to accept we have an equally moral obligation to try to protect the people who cooperated with us during that endeavor.”

Commanders calling in from Kabul relayed that the Abbey Gate, where American citizens had been told to gather in order to gain entrance to the airport, was “highest risk,” and detailed their plans to protect the airport.

“I don’t believe people get the incredible amount of risk on the ground,” Austin said, according to the classified notes.

On a separate call at 4 that afternoon, or 12:30 a.m. on Thursday in Kabul, the commanders detailed a plan to close Abbey Gate by Thursday afternoon Kabul time. But the Americans decided to keep the gate open longer than they wanted in order to allow their British allies, who had accelerated their withdrawal timeline, to continue evacuating their personnel, based at the nearby Baron Hotel.

American troops were still processing entrants to the airport at Abbey Gate at roughly 6 p.m. in Kabul on Thursday when a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest there, killing nearly 200 people, including 13 U.S. service members.

In the week before the attack, President Joe Biden and top administration officials repeatedly spoke in public about the general threat ISIS posed to the airport. Biden even cited that threat as a reason not to extend the military mission beyond Aug. 31. The president warned this weekend that an additional ISIS attack was “highly likely.”

This account of the internal conversations among top Pentagon leaders in the hours leading up to Thursday’s attack at the airport is based on classified notes from three separate calls provided to POLITICO and interviews with two defense officials with direct knowledge of the calls. POLITICO is withholding information from the Pentagon readouts that could affect ongoing military operations at Kabul airport.

The transcript of these three conference calls, authenticated by a defense official, details conversations among the highest levels of Pentagon leadership. It makes clear that top officials were raising alarm bells and preparing for a potential attack that they had narrowed down to a handful of possible targets and a 24-48 hour time frame — projections that ended up being deadly accurate.

“This story is based on the unlawful disclosure of classified information and internal deliberations of a sensitive nature,” Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said in a statement. “As soon as we became aware of the material divulged to the reporter, we engaged Politico at the highest levels to prevent the publication of information that would put our troops and our operations at the airport at greater risk.”

“We condemn the unlawful disclosure of classified information and oppose the publication of a story based on it while a dangerous operation is ongoing,” he continued.

The White House declined to comment further.

The intelligence about the security threat at Kabul airport detailed on the calls was relayed up and down the chain of command, according to a second defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss top-secret conversations. The White House took the threats seriously and supported the commanders taking action as they deemed fit, the official said, adding, “There was no micromanagement from Washington of the effort to try to prevent this [attack].”

Measures to avert an imminent attack included closing two airport gates permanently, notifying Taliban checkpoints of the potential threat and asking them to account for it in their screening procedures, limiting foot and vehicle traffic through a number of gates, and issuing alerts to American citizens warning them of specific threats at specific locations, the official said.

“U.S. forces at HKIA were aware of and accounting for a variety of threats, and exercising extreme vigilance,” the official said, using an acronym for the Kabul airport. “We took numerous actions to protect our forces and the evacuees, but no amount of effort will completely eliminate the threat of a determined enemy.”

Frustration with the Taliban

Austin kicked off Wednesday’s discussion by saying the threats would increase in the next 24-48 hours, and instructed his team to remain “laser-focused” on evacuating American citizens from the city. The day before, U.S. and coalition forces had flown a total of 19,000 people from Kabul in military and commercial aircraft, the Pentagon said.

Rear Adm. Peter Vasely, the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, and Maj. Gen. Christopher Donahue, the commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division, called in from the Kabul airport to detail threats to three airport gates, where U.S. troops were moving in Americans and Afghans slated for evacuation. Along with Abbey Gate, the South and West Gates were also under threat, they said, according to the written notes of the call, which did not identify which of the two was speaking.

According to the notes, Vasely and Donahue discussed how the Taliban were undertaking additional security measures and pushing back the crowds outside the airport due to the threat. Throughout the evacuation effort, the Taliban have instituted curfews and expanded the security perimeter around the airport in an effort to help the Americans increase security, the defense official said.

But the military leaders on the call expressed frustration with the Taliban’s persistent lack of cooperation, noting that militants were turning potential evacuees away at the gates.

Since the American military team in Kabul last engaged directly with Abdul Ghani Baradar, the leader of the Taliban, “it takes more bandwidth to get things moving,” Vasely and Donahue said, according to the written notes of the call.

“If a person wants to leave but they get turned away by [the Taliban] at [the Ministry of Interior meetup] location, we have instructed them to call us 24/7,” they said, according to the notes of the meeting.

The team had “frequent and constant communications with the Taliban” multiple times a day to try to resolve issues as they cropped up, the defense official told POLITICO. “Many times they were successful, but that doesn’t mean that in subsequent hours or days we wouldn’t have a similar problem pop up again.”

‘We probably ought to listen’

After the early Wednesday morning meeting ended, a smaller group including Austin, Central Command chief Gen. Frank McKenzie, and Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, convened at 9 a.m. to continue the conversation, with McKenzie calling in from his Tampa headquarters. Austin once again expressed his alarm about the imminent attack.

“We probably ought to listen when you have a former [Joint Special Operations Command] and SEAL commander on the ground saying it’s high risk,” Austin said, referring to Vasely. Vasely and Donahue were not described as being on the call.

According to the classified call notes, McKenzie made clear the Americans did not have much of a choice in relying on the Taliban for securing the evacuees. And he predicted the militants would be less willing to help the U.S. military effort the longer they stayed in Kabul, even as the threat from ISIS-K increased. The Taliban and ISIS-K are sworn enemies and defense officials have repeatedly said they have no reason to believe the two groups are collaborating.

“The ability of [the Taliban] to protect us and assist in pursuing [American citizens] and other groups — that willingness will decay, and we’re seeing leading edge indicators of that today,” McKenzie said on the Wednesday morning call. “We do need the agreement of the [Taliban] to pursue our principal objectives of getting out [American citizens] and other priority groups.”

McKenzie then offered a grave prediction about the success of the evacuation effort.

“We’re not going to get everyone out. We’ll get 90-95 percent,” McKenzie said. The call notes did not specify if he was talking about American citizens, or everyone who wanted to evacuate.

“History will judge us by those final images,” Kahl warned, according to the call notes.

After the morning update, the team at the airport sprang into action, closing several of the gates, working with the Taliban to move through additional evacuees, and developing intelligence targets related to ISIS-K.

Helping allies complicates gate closures

At 4 p.m. on Wednesday, or 12:30 a.m. on Thursday in Kabul, Austin’s team at the Pentagon, Central Command headquarters and Kabul convened once more to prepare for the secretary’s evening update. At least nine officials were on the call.

According to the call notes, Vasely said he was looking to shut down Abbey Gate. At that point, the team had permanently closed two of the airport gates, North Gate and East Gate, but left South Gate and West Gate open, he said.

Leaders had already discussed with the Taliban additional security measures outside the gates, Vasely said, and planned to have Abbey Gate closed by Thursday afternoon, Kabul time.

But Abbey Gate was not closed on schedule. British forces had accelerated their drawdown from the Baron Hotel just a few hundred yards away, their main hub for evacuating U.K. personnel, and the Americans had to keep the gate open to allow the U.K. evacuees into the airport, Vasely said.

British officials couldn’t be reached for comment before publication.

The U.K. evacuees had not yet arrived when the attack occurred, the defense official told POLITICO. The bomb claimed two British civilian casualties.

On the call, Vasely also described how NATO allies were having problems with the Taliban obstructing an earlier convoy, including Swedes, Danes, Dutch and other personnel.

Despite the tensions, the military continued relaying to the militants precise details about timelines for the withdrawal and the processes for getting American citizens through the gates, Vasely said, according to the call notes. They also allowed the Taliban to operate buses picking up people for evacuation, he added.

A senior military intelligence official not identified by name in the call notes reiterated that they were continuing to see indications of ISIS-K planning a major attack, and noted his team was in the midst of “developing targets,” he said, referring to ISIS-K. It would be “helpful” to close Abbey Gate, he said.

It was all too late. The bombing, at 6 p.m. Kabul time, came as Austin and Milley were in the White House conferring with the president. The blast ripped through the crowd of civilians and U.S. military personnel at Abbey Gate, killing roughly 200 — including 13 U.S. service members, whose remains were repatriated at a solemn ceremony Sunday at Dover Air Force Base attended by Biden, Austin, Milley and other officials.

Following the attack, Biden gave the Pentagon the green light to take out anyone who might have been involved. The military said it killed two ISIS-K terrorists and wounded another in a drone strike on Saturday, and thwarted another imminent attack on the airport on Sunday.

Biden vowed on Saturday to keep striking the extremist group amid the continuing threat to the airport.

“This strike was not the last,” Biden said in a statement. “We will continue to hunt down any person involved in that heinous attack and make them pay.”