A recent terror attack by an Egyptian national in Colorado reignites debates over media dismissals of border security concerns.
At a Glance
- Rolling Stone previously labeled concerns about Hamas operatives entering the U.S. via the southern border as a “conspiracy theory”
- The New York Times and Los Angeles Times echoed similar sentiments, downplaying potential threats
- Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa, allegedly attacked pro-Israel demonstrators in Colorado
- Soliman had been granted a work permit by the Biden administration despite his visa overstay
- The incident has prompted renewed scrutiny of media narratives and border security policies
Media’s Dismissal of Security Concerns
In the aftermath of Hamas’s October 2023 attacks on Israel, right-wing lawmakers and commentators warned that terrorists could exploit the U.S.-Mexico border to enter the country. At the time, these claims were met with skepticism by major media outlets. Rolling Stone’s Miles Klee dismissed the warnings as “baseless fearmongering,” calling the idea that Hamas fighters could infiltrate the U.S. a “far-fetched conspiracy theory.”
Other major newspapers followed suit. A New York Times article portrayed the concern as politically motivated distraction, while the Los Angeles Times editorial board asserted that such warnings lacked evidence and detracted from more immediate domestic issues. These portrayals framed the threat as implausible, encouraging public and policy complacency.
The Colorado Incident
The narrative shifted abruptly in May 2025 when Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who had overstayed his student visa, was arrested for attacking a pro-Israel demonstration in Fort Collins, Colorado. According to police reports, Soliman threw Molotov cocktails at demonstrators, injuring several and prompting terror-related charges. He had entered the U.S. legally in 2019 but remained after his visa expired in 2023.
Despite his overstay, Soliman had been granted a work permit under the Biden administration’s deferred enforcement policies. The fact that he evaded detection and received government authorization sparked criticism of current immigration oversight mechanisms and lent weight to earlier warnings dismissed by the press.
Watch a report: Press Said Terrorists Entering The U.S. Was ‘Conspiracy Theory’.
Reevaluating Media Narratives and Policies
The Soliman case has renewed scrutiny of media coverage that categorically dismissed border-related security threats. Critics argue that such blanket denials foster a false sense of security and inhibit legitimate policy discussion. Former officials have noted that the southern border is a known vulnerability, and government assessments have long warned about terror networks exploiting immigration gaps.
The episode has also fueled broader political debates about the Biden administration’s immigration policies. Supporters of stricter enforcement argue that cases like Soliman’s show the need for tighter screening and visa tracking, while civil liberties groups caution against overreaction that could penalize law-abiding immigrants.
Whether isolated or part of a trend, the Soliman attack underscores how quickly a dismissed threat can become reality—raising urgent questions about the role of the media in national security discourse.
