According to an extensive report published by Reuters, the administration of President Donald Trump has reportedly instructed U.S. consulates around the world to scrutinize certain H1-B visa applicants more rigorously, particularly those who have professional experience in areas connected to content moderation or what is described as “censorship.” This directive, as outlined in a State Department cable obtained by Reuters, calls for careful examination of applicants’ resumes, LinkedIn profiles, and professional portfolios to determine whether their employment history includes involvement in digital moderation activities, fact-checking initiatives, online safety and compliance functions, or the monitoring and management of misinformation on internet platforms.
As detailed in the report, the guidance issued by the State Department extends broadly to all categories of visa applicants. However, it specifically targets individuals pursuing H1-B visas who may have been employed by social media or financial technology companies associated with actions that could be characterized as restricting or suppressing constitutionally protected speech within the United States. The practice is especially notable because leading global technology corporations — including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft — depend heavily on the H1-B visa program to hire highly specialized and technically proficient workers from around the world. These positions often require advanced academic training and niche expertise that contribute directly to innovation in the U.S. technology sector.
The internal cable cited by Reuters explicitly advises consular officers to regard any evidence suggesting that an applicant played a direct role in, or was complicit with, acts of censorship or attempted censorship of protected discourse as grounds to pursue a formal determination of visa ineligibility. The document emphasizes the importance of conducting thorough background checks and exhaustive inquiries into each applicant’s employment record to ensure there is no participation — either deliberate or indirect — in activities that could be interpreted as infringing upon free expression.
This measure appears as part of a broader tightening of U.S. immigration policy under President Trump’s administration. Earlier in the same year, the President introduced additional restrictions and procedural hurdles, first by directing the State Department to screen the social media presence of all student visa candidates, and subsequently by imposing a substantial supplementary application fee of $100,000 for H1-B visa submissions. Beyond these measures, the administration also temporarily suspended immigration applications from nineteen countries officially categorized as “countries of concern,” a decision that followed heightened domestic security tensions and the deployment of the National Guard during civil unrest in Washington, D.C.
Legal and policy experts have expressed significant concern regarding the implications of this newly reported policy. Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney and legislative advisor at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, issued a statement criticizing the directive as both illogical and unconstitutional. She argued that professionals engaged in studying the spread of misinformation or in moderating digital content are not suppressing discourse but rather performing functions that help preserve the integrity of public communication and uphold the very freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. In her view, the government’s conflation of legitimate moderation with censorship represents a profound misunderstanding of both the legal and ethical principles of free expression.
In response to Reuters’ inquiries regarding the authenticity and intention of the leaked cable, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department declined to verify the document’s validity, stating that the department does not issue comments on “allegedly leaked documents.” Nevertheless, the spokesperson reaffirmed that the United States does not support admitting foreign nationals into the country for the purpose of acting as “censors” or individuals who would, in their official capacity, suppress the voices of American citizens. The department did not immediately respond to further requests for clarification made by The Verge. The situation, as reported, underscores a widening intersection between immigration policy, free speech debates, and the rapidly evolving governance of digital communication platforms.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/838489/trump-admin-h1b-visas-content-moderation
