Two individuals with alleged ties to Islamic jihadist groups, including one with links to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), have been appointed to former US President Donald Trump's White House Advisory Board of Lay Leaders. The appointees, Ismail Royer and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, have sparked controversy due to their past associations with extremist ideologies and activities.

Ismail Royer, formerly known as Randall Todd Royer, reportedly embraced Islam and became involved in Muslim advocacy. However, his experiences in the Bosnian War and his engagement with LeT in Pakistan in 2000 are said to have marked a shift towards jihadi militancy. According to US investigative journalist Lara Loomer, Royer's activities with LeT, a US-designated terrorist organization, included propaganda, firing at Indian positions in Kashmir, and possessing weapons, demonstrating a commitment to violent jihadist causes.

Royer has admitted to facilitating the entry of other jihadists into LeT training camps. Following a meeting on September 16, 2001, where an unindicted conspirator claimed that the September 11 attacks would be used to trigger a global war against Islam, Royer dedicated his efforts to helping others join the mujahideen abroad. In his plea agreement, Royer confessed to aiding Masoud Khan, Yong Ki Kwon, Muhammed Aatique, and Khwaja Mahmoud Hasan in gaining access to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan operated by LeT, where they received weapons training. He also admitted to assisting Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi in joining the LeT camp, where Al-Hamdi was trained in using rocket-propelled grenades as part of a conspiracy to conduct military operations against India.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf's alleged affiliations with Islamic jihadists and proscribed terror groups, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas, have also raised concerns.

The appointment of individuals with alleged ties to extremist groups to a White House advisory board has drawn criticism and sparked debate about the vetting processes and the potential implications for national security. Some argue that these appointments could be perceived as a sign of support for radical ideologies, while others maintain that these individuals have since renounced their past associations and can offer valuable perspectives on religious and cultural issues.