Trump ordered social media screening for US visas. The Biden White House is defending it.

The Knight First Amendment Institute just lost a battle to force the Biden administration to provide a report on the collection of social media handles from millions of visa applicants every year.


Visa applicants have to give up any of their social media handles from the past five years.

Photo: belterz/Getty Images

Would you feel comfortable if a U.S. immigration official reviewed all that you post on Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter or even YouTube? Would it change what you decide to post or whom you talk to online? Perhaps you’ve said something critical of the U.S. government. Perhaps you’ve jokingly threatened to whack someone.

If you’ve applied for a U.S. visa, there’s a chance your online missives have been subjected to this kind of scrutiny, all in the name of keeping America safe. But three years after the Trump administration ordered enhanced vetting of visa applications, the Biden White House has not only continued the program, but is defending it — despite refusing to say if it’s had any impact.

On Monday, in response to one of two lawsuits filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute, the State Department refused to release a report detailing the effectiveness of enhanced vetting, which requires the nearly 15 million people who apply for U.S. visas annually to hand over all social media handles they used in the prior five years. That includes anonymous accounts, private ones, public ones and those they barely use.

Putting aside the ethical quandary of whether a visa-processing official can be trusted to judge someone’s intent from their internet presence, the policy might be illegal, according to a complaint filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute in December 2019 in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Knight Institute — affiliated with Columbia University — accused the government of hobbling the free speech not only of people seeking to enter the U.S., but also of those already here.

“We think this violates the First Amendment,” Anna Diakun, a staff attorney at the Knight Institute, told Protocol. “It chills the speech and association of not just the visa applicants — many of whom have expansive ties to the United States — but also the people in the United States who want to engage with them.”

The policy conditions someone’s “ability to obtain a significant benefit (a U.S. visa) on their willingness to register their online speech and associations with the U.S. government,” Knight Institute attorneys wrote in a brief. In essence, the Knight Institute argues that the procedure and the cascading decisions it creates for visa applicants casts a pall over speech for countless individuals.

State Department The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have moved to dismiss the Knight Institute's suit. Photo: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The State Department did not respond to requests for comment. Attorneys for the Department of Justice, on behalf of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, have moved to dismiss the suit and allege that the Knight Institute does not have standing or a valid First Amendment claim.

“The social media policy passes constitutional muster,” attorneys for the agencies wrote in a June 10 brief. “The policy plausibly relates to the Executive Branch’s goal of strengthening screening and vetting protocols for foreign nationals who seek to enter the country, especially with regard to ‘detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and [...] preventing those individuals from entering the United States.’”

The Trump administration implemented social media screening in 2019 after proposing it alongside other new immigration policies, including the infamous restrictions that became known as the Muslim travel ban. While President Biden revoked the Muslim travel ban upon taking office, he kept the social media vetting in place and pledged a report on the impact of the policy.

A little over a year later, in February 2022, the Biden administration proposed expanding the program to include nearly everyone who travels to the United States without a visa, such as those who are not required to obtain visas as they’re staying 90 days or fewer. That proposal is still awaiting approval or rejection from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Customs and Border Protection justified the proposed expansion as a way to “enhance our vetting processes and assist in confirming applicants' identities.”

The Knight Institute has filed two lawsuits in response to the social media policy: one seeking to have a federal judge throw it out, and the other demanding that the Biden administration release its report on the policy’s impact. A judge has yet to rule on the request to have the policy declared invalid.

In response to the other lawsuit, the Biden administration cited several Freedom of Information Act exemptions for keeping the report private, including one that allows the president to withhold documents used solely for presidential decision-making.

“We expect that the report does address whether or not this is effective — if there are benefits, what they are; if there are costs, what they are. And we think the public deserves to know this information,” Diakun said.

The Knight Institute is negotiating with federal attorneys to try to release other related documents, such as emails about the report’s conclusions, and will eventually try to fight the government’s refusal to release the full report.

As for the Knight Institute’s attempt to have the entire policy thrown out, Diakun said there’s no telling when the judge will rule on that.

Even if the social media handles are used just to verify identity, the Knight Institute attorneys and those they represent — filmmakers for two documentary organizations — fear the longer-term consequences of social media collection. Those records aren’t deleted after someone enters the country, but are instead stored by DHS in an immigration file system for 100 years after someone is born. Other U.S. federal agencies can sometimes access that information, and other countries have information-sharing agreements with DHS that could potentially give them access to the same data, according to the lawsuit.

“We think that requiring 15 million people a year to turn over this information is wildly overboard and unnecessary,” Diakun said.

Finally, legality aside, there’s that simple ethical question about the stated use of a policy that, to most U.S. citizens, sounds far-fetched and even dystopian.

“Take bias of the reviewers, linguistic challenges, not understanding cultural context, misunderstanding hyperbole or sarcasm,” Diakun said. “We think it is a flawed way of trying to determine who is eligible for a visa.”


This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.


The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).


White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories