Student Visa Applicants Will Now Be Forced To Make Their Social Media Accounts Public
The Trump administration continues its war against disfavored speech.

In a Monday announcement, several U.S. embassies stated that student visa applicants will be required to turn the settings on their social media accounts to "public" in order to facilitate scrutiny of their posts, presumably for ideological screening. The change is part of a recent string of crackdowns on international students, which has targeted many who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests or expressed anti-Israel views.
In a social media post, the U.S. Embassy in London wrote that "every visa adjudication is a national security decision," adding that applicants for several kinds of student visas would be required to "adjust the privacy settings on all of their personal social media accounts to 'public' to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States." Several other embassy social media accounts also posted the statement.
The directive comes after months of ramped-up efforts to ideologically filter prospective international students. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio began canceling the visas of some college students who participated in anti-Israel protests—or, in one student's case, simply wrote an op-ed. In one March press conference, he estimated that his office had canceled more than 300 visas.
"Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa." Rubio said. "At some point, I hope we run out because we've gotten rid of all of them, but, we're looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up."
A domestic cable sent to embassy officials in May telegraphed this latest development, ordering officials to scour social media posts from prospective Harvard students, noting that the order "will also serve as a pilot for expanded screening and vetting of visa applicants" and "will be expanded over time." Last week, additional policy updates directed embassy officials to review F, M, and J visas (which are common student visas) for "any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States."
This latest move in the Trump administration's mission to prevent students with disfavored views from studying in the U.S. is nothing less than outright viewpoint discrimination. While the U.S. has a national security interest in vetting visa applicants for affiliations with outright terrorist groups, merely opposing Israel's actions in Gaza hardly approaches that line. And, as many free speech advocates have pointed out, this precedent can easily be utilized to punish many other viewpoints.
"There is nothing stopping this or another administration from using that authority tomorrow against critics of other countries, whether they're protesting Russia's invasion of Ukraine or China's oppression of Uyghurs," reads a recent statement from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment group. "That's wrong. Requiring foreign students and faculty to self-censor their views about American foreign policy in order to stay in the country violates American principles of free speech and the First Amendment."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s not social if it’s private.
Forgive me but if a "student" is applying for a visa and his/her social media is jammed full of anti semitism, hatred for America, support of terrorists etc then I don't want that person in the country for any reason. Coming here is a privilege not a right. That goes for students already here. Start screeching about supporting terrorists or destroying Israel and your visa should be pulled. Go back to your own country and spew all the hatred you want.
Good.
We've imported enough American-hating shitbag drains on society for at least another century
>The Trump administration continues its war against disfavored speech.
So this isn't just private companies doing a thing?
Also, you publish it publicly on social media - the government is just demanding you provide a link to your already public statements.
If your account is private how is that publishing it publicly? What's next, demanding access to your email so they can see everything you've ever sent?
Applying for a Visa has requirements. News at 11.
Especially hilarious given the number of stories we have now about these poor people lying on visa apps, attending terrorist funerals, etc.
Rules only apply when a democrat decides they do.
I don't have any problem with vetting long term residents in a way that is not nearly as invasive as we do for our own citizens applying for jobs at the State Department. That requires the FBI to do in-person interviews of your character references.
You know, he could have just worked with the NSA to do this behind the scenes and no one would have been the wiser. There's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping anti-American Zoomers from getting degrees from US colleges, where the majority marxist faculty are just going to continue winding them up while they're on US soil.
So, the commenters here have clearly abandoned the idea that freedom of movement is an individual right. It is instead a privilege granted by the state only to those individuals that the collective citizenry deem worthy of being granted that privilege.
So why should this idea not apply to state borders as well as national borders? Suppose the citizens of Texas said that in order to come to Texas one must prove that one is a god-fearing Christian conservative. No one else shall be permitted to enter. What is the argument against this plan?
Freedom of Movement has never been a thing. Why have Private Property Rights and not National borders? Why invite invaders who hate you and wish you ill?
What private property rights are immigrants violating? Their landlord's? Their employer's? The grocery store's?
Illegal immigrants, not immigrants. They have violated every taxpaying American's property rights by using public properties. If that doesn't fit your narrative, they have stolen my (and your) labor if they receive a single benefit. This includes drinking from a park fountain. Now multiply by 10-15M
Most illegals are more productive than your MAGA buddies down at the trailer park who own three ARs each and claim disability so they can sit around and drink cheap beer all day.
This remains false and a trope of leftist retard shits like yourself.
Apart from being able to afford three ARs, Sarc just described himself.
Ah, more of your drunken democrat fan fiction. Instead, I suggest suicide. But a pussy like you doesn’t have the guts. Or maybe you could just get real drunk and attack some cops with a weapon and let them execute you.
You could even fantasize that the one who kills you is Jesse.
Not if his liver gets to him first.
Someday his liver is going to try to escape.
They have violated every taxpaying American's property rights by using public properties.
What about citizens who don't pay taxes (legally), such as very poor people? Do they violate your rights when they use public properties? If so, what should be done about this rights violation?
Some do, and that’s what the legal system is for. Due process for CITIZENS.
"(legally)..."
Way to shoot your own argument in the foot. You just answered your own question.
I meant that the payment of no taxes was legal (as in, not being a tax cheat), as opposed to the person being here legally.
So, if a legal citizen does not pay taxes, is that citizen entitled to use the public drinking fountain?
If they legally didn't pay taxes, then they are LEGALLY able to use public services.
If that doesn't fit your narrative, they have stolen my (and your) labor if they receive a single benefit. This includes drinking from a park fountain. Now multiply by 10-15M
Are you willing to apply this very strict standard to EVERYONE, not just migrants? For example, if you stop at a town at which you are not a resident and not a local taxpayer, should you be forbidden from using the public drinking fountain in that town?
No Fatfuck, citizens are here legally. Stop trying to divert with your bullshit analogies. We’re getting rid of the illegals, and tightening up screening on potential immigrants.
So seethe harder, shut the fuck up, and go back to your 55 gallon drum of Ben & Jerry’s.
I remember the time I asked Jeff to show us where he got the narratice that illegals pay more in taxes than they take. He linked to a 30 year old Brookings model that showed they might become net payers after 20 years while ignoring the entire integration of when they were takers. And this was simply an economics model, not actual data.
Good times. Good times.
He’s such a lying shitweasel. I wonder if anyone tolerates his presence in person. Other than his grocer.
Why have Private Property Rights and not National borders?
In your view, do national borders supersede private property rights? If so, in what way?
In your view, is there a difference between Vikings reading the European mainland, and a church group touring the Vatican?
Why don't you try answering the question instead of dodging? Also, I didn't think the Vikings were big readers.
Nah, you’re just puking up your usual sophist argument to try and justify open borders. You have been indulged too many times, with all your arguments shot down hundreds of times. Over the last decade.
So no, we’re not going through that again. Instead, I suggest you commit suicide.
Poor argumentation.
Hey Fatfuck. No one wants your open borders bullshit. We get it. You don’t believe in citizenship, or our constitutional republic. But that doesn’t matter, because you and your faggot friends aren’t in charge.
So sit down and shit up before things get real fucking bad for you. Or don’t. I would love to see you put down like the traitor you are.
Jeff believes in open borders marxism. You should fund the world.
I don't believe in Marxism. I do favor the free movement of goods and people around the world.
Jesse, on the other hand, does not believe in anything. He is just an NPC repeating what the right-wing media bubble and social media influencers tell him to say.
You’re a global marxist. You think countries are just marketplaces to be controlled by your overlords, like Soros. You despise citizenship and national pride.
You are a traitor.
Trash the Federal state, then there's no issue.
" the idea that freedom of movement is an individual right."
It's not. It never has been. It's so not a right that if you try to come on my property despite notice that you're not allowed there in many places I am allowed to shoot you in the face.
What the fuck? Freedom of movement between states has never been a thing. It doesn't apply to state borders because, IDK, The Constitution? Are you drunk posting again?
The Constitution requires protection of our borders, and vetting people to obtain a visa is commonplace in every country. By being a US citizen you can travel to other states. Get it together.
The thought police are here. Incorrect thought shall be punished. Thoughtcrime will not be tolerated. ThinkPol is watching.
Where were you in 2020?
Seethe harder pinko.
OK retard, did 9-11 never happen in your world?
The change is part of a recent string of crackdowns on international students, which has targeted many who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests or expressed anti-Israel views.
Rubio is a fierce warrior for what he considers the world's greatest nation. As his spokesperson said, the US is the “Greatest Country on Earth Next to Israel.”
America
firstsecond!Try again, shit ball. It's pretty clear what she was saying. This is just another attempt by the left to try and drive a wedge between Trump Administration officials and will work as well as attacks on Hegseth and Gabbard have.
"The pride of being able to be here and do work that facilitates making things better for people and in the greatest country on earth next to Israel." *smirk*
Yes, it was perfectly clear what she was saying. It was either sincere or pandering to Israelis, but how do you interpret it any other way than America second?
This dismissal of everything critical of Trump as coming from the left is so tired and weak. Just like we all grew weary of the left's wolf-cries of "racist," so too, we now dismiss the exhausted cries of any criticism of Trump as "coming from the left."
By the way, I learned about this on Ron Paul's Liberty report.
So why don't you try again?
I'm sure a loyalty test is not far behind. Not loyalty to the U.S. mind you. Loyalty to the king, I mean Trump.
You really are just full of leftist ideas and narratives lately. Never an intelligent comment.
Wasn't there a GOP loyalty pledge in 2023 ?
Why would I know?
What does your non sequitur have to do with sarc being a retarded leftist?
Sarc, you may get lucky with this sock. Good luck bud.
DOGE had/has a loyalty test. Approval of tariffs (disregard for economics) is required. I'm sure Jesse got a perfect score on his loyalty test before he got hired to attack Trump critics on Reason 24/7/365.
Leftist retarded narratives and ignorance has been attacked here for decades. You should be used to it. Please tell us how Trump is Hitler again. How he is guilty of all the lawfare. How raising income taxes is a good thing. How the deep state needs to be respected.
Sit down Maddow.
Hey pussy, I’ll take ‘shit that never happened’ for $800.
Loyalty pledge to fucking what you retarded cunt? The establishment Repubs, Trump, MAGA generally?
I think that was a Rona Romney thing and was aimed at the candidates pledging to support whoever won the Republican nomination to stop infighting and hostility. Expecting members of your party to support the eventual nominee when they drop out of a race seems pretty standard. A quick "I support X in his/her run" statement and go quiet isn't much of an ask.
And look what happens to any democrat that goes even a little bit off the narrative reservation.
Loyalty test are a Democrat thing and have been for quite some time. Ask Hogg or Fetterman how they feel about it.
Fetterman was speaking pretty openly about it on Bill Maher’s show recently. As democrats go, he’s somewhat decent, and not a complete Marxist nutcase. So they want him out.
That's played. Get some new bleats.
If there's going to be ideological litmus tests for obtaining a visa, then why not ideological litmus tests for other government services? After all, in the eyes of the state, driving on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege only legally granted to those with a license. Why shouldn't the state impose an ideological litmus test for getting a driver's license, so that the state can reject those who show "any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States." Why not?
You seem baffled by citizen v non-citizen.
One is a person, the other is not. Right?
Wrong as usual.
Are you sure you're not a retarded leftist. Do we have to explain this to you like we have to explain how tax brackets work?
Why does that matter in this case? If you are so offended by a non-citizen Marxist driving on public roads, why would the citizen Marxist driving on public roads be less offensive?
Because they’re a citizen. And should be dealt with via different channels. Just like you.
Because one of them has his rights acknowledged and protected by the US Constitution and the other one does not.
Do you think US courts should be telling Germany that it's not allowed to throw people in prison for tweets? If you think the First Amendment protects the free speech rights of Germans in Germany, why not?
When rights are mentioned in the Constitution it says they belong to the People, not the citizens.
You can't be this retarded.
According to our government, there is no right to drive on public roads. It is a PERMISSION granted by a LICENSE. Try driving without your license and then when you are inevitably pulled over by a cop, tell him that "I have a right to be here even without a license". See how that works for you.
So I ask again: why should the PRIVILEGE of driving on public roads not be subject to an ideological litmus test?
Common carrier law.
But again, that is a creation of federal law. So feel free to trash the feds, then get back to us.
If you think the First Amendment protects the free speech rights of Germans in Germany,
The First Amendment doesn't apply in Germany, of course.
Rights aren't granted by the Constitution. Rights are *Inherent*. They are our birthright. We have them just by breathing. The First Amendment *acknowledges* our rights, it doesn't *grant* rights. Germans in Germany also have free speech rights because they are also human beings with natural rights. If the German government does not respect those rights, then that government is behaving unjustly. Hope that clears it up for you.
The first amendement absolutely do apply to non citizen (do you think a german citizen can be sent to jail in the US for saying something against the president ?). It does not apply to the german gouvernement of course, even in its relation to US nationals.
Fatfuck doesn’t believe in citizenship.
They don’t want terrorists entering the US. If you’re not publicly advocating for anti-American policies on your social media your’re okay. My father in law couldn’t get an American visa because he was a member of a socialist party in his country 25 years ago. This is not new.
Frankly, I don't care Emma.
They can accept those terms or stay in their own countries.
OH NO!!
Some damn fool wants to keep people who hate America out of America!
Hating America is the important thing. And then funding those who hate America. Then of course destroying America.
What law (if any) do they claim gives them authority to do this? It does seem like a clear and blatant violation of the First Amendment. You would think that someone denied a visa for posts on social media would sue to establish that fact, but if they aren't here, can they? Or does anyone have standing to sue on their behalf?
The INA and laws regarding visas. Read them sometime.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0.html
Fucking useless jackass.
Pretty sure America has a right to learn if you're an America-hating commie, jihadi, or supremacist before giving you a visitor's pass.
Suggesting otherwise implies that anyone and everyone has a RIGHT to a visa no questions asked. Which is retarded.
Who wrote this article???
Oh, of course, the retard.
And also, retard, nobody's forcing them to make their social media public. They're simply conditioning the terms of their graciousness. No different than asking you to take your shoes off before you come in my house. If you've got holey socks and smelly feet, I might balk at that and ask you to leave. If you're a normal human being that practices basic hygiene - sure, welcome.
Until I tell you to leave, that is. And then you get ZERO say in whether you get to stay.
Enter the 14th Amendment.
Foreigners don't have protection of ... "law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities (i.e. Bill of Rights) of" ... because ... They aren't "citizens of the United States".
Course Reason writers pretend to believe any visitor subjected-to your house rules (US jurisdiction) somehow now 'owns' your house (US Citizen) so it's really just illegitimate self-entitlement stacked with illegitimate rights claims.
Part of leftards cliche of self-proclaiming 'rights' to others belongings.
Excellent news.