On October 14, 2025, the US Department of State (“DOS”) reported they had revoked the visas of six foreign nationals who had made seemingly mocking or celebratory comments via social media about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was shot while speaking at a university event in Utah. Citizens from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay, and South Africa were among those affected. Posting on X, the DOS thread included the social media posts or comments in question, with the users’ handles or names redacted and identified only by their country of origin, followed by “Visa revoked.”
While the Department of State had previously announced that Consular officers were expected to review “applicants’ entire online presence”, not just social media bios with regard to students’ visa applications, heightened scrutiny seems to now be applied to all nonimmigrant visa categories. The State Department’s heightened scrutiny of political expression, perceived hostility, and social media activity does not end once a visa is issued; it continues to affect foreign nationals even after they have entered the United States. This monitoring environment extends beyond the visa process itself, as US Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) also reviews publicly available social media content in connection with immigration benefits and discretionary adjudications. USCIS has confirmed that such review may be conducted as part of its vetting and review of petitions and in determining when to grant benefits.
The DOS expanded vetting comes on the heels of Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau’s post on X on September 11, 2025, the day after Kirk’s death, stating he was “disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event” and urging the public to “bring such comments by foreigners to my attention” so that U.S. consular officials could "undertake appropriate action.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio further affirmed on September 15, 2025 that “visa revocations are under way. If you are here on a visa and cheering on the public assassination of a political figure, prepare to be deported. You are not welcome in this country.”
Recent actions have sparked debate over the balance between free speech and government enforcement of norms, especially for non-citizens, and highlight how social media has become a surveilled space where words can carry tangible consequences. This moment ties into several broader trends under the Trump administration: tighter immigration rules, more scrutiny of speech (particularly that deemed hateful or celebratory of violence), and increasing use of social media posts by government officials to justify policy. Social media histories and speech of non-citizens have become central to immigration policy. In this climate, the digital spaces that once fostered open expression have become tools of control, turning visibility into liability for non-citizens.