On October 14, the State Department’s X (Twitter) account posted a number of examples of persons whose visas have been revoked due to their social media comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist.
The post explained, “The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans.” And, “@POTUS and @SecRubio will defend our borders, our culture, and our citizens by enforcing our immigration laws. Aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed.”
Examples of the social media comments cited by the State Department include criticism of Kirk’s rhetoric accompanied by:
- a statement that Kirk deserved to die
- a wish that Kirk should go to hell
- mocking of Americans grieving the assassination
The State Department post does not explain the legal basis for the visa revocations. However, a purported State Department cable, dated June 18, 2025, lays out detailed reasons that a person’s social media and other online presence may be a basis for determining that a visa applicant or visa holder is inadmissible to the U.S. (i.e., can be denied a visa, denied admission at a port of entry, or have their visa revoked, or be deportable from the U.S.). The social media or other online presence may be evidence of:
- Criminal activity
- Engaging or planning to engage in terrorist activities
- Past immigration status violations
- Evidence that the applicant will engage in political activism inconsistent with the visa status they seek
- Opposition to the U.S. government
- Other illegal activities
- Potentially serious foreign policy consequences of their entry to the U.S.
For further details, see State Dep’t Updates Social Media Vetting Standards – Chodorow Law Offices.
The rationale for revoking the visas over posts about Kirk seems to be that the individuals may engage in political activism inconsistent with their visa status. In particular, the Trump administration has often expressed concerns about political activists disrupting and undermining scholarly activity at U.S. universities. But it’s not clear how political activism is inconsistent with one’s visa status unless it is illegal. Political activism consisting of legal conduct is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.
President Trump has told others to “go to hell” and has complained about cities and countries “going to hell.” Those statements are in bad taste but not a basis for impeachment.
Similarly, celebration of Kirk’s death is in bad taste, but it’s not evidence of intent to engage in illegal behavior. These visa revocations appear to be misguided.
Leave a Reply