Visa and immigration policy: International students and freedom of speech, 1

Activism-related visa actions premised on foreign-policy-related authorities

Parallel to the question of the federal government’s power to deport international students is whether deportation threats have violated those students’ First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. This question has been raised by the State Department’s initial targeting of students expressing support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s instruction to consular officials on March 25, 2025, to examine visa applicants’ social media accounts.¹ That instruction was reinforced through guidance the department announced on June 18, requiring applicants for F, J, and M visas to open their social media accounts to screening.²

The government is predicating its power to deny and revoke visas due to speech acts, first, on the State Department’s broad discretion over visas, and second, on statutory provisions originally enacted through the Immigration Act of 1990. Those latter provisions allow the denial of visas to individuals whose “admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest,”³ and the deportation of those “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”⁴

Recent use of rarely invoked authorities flouts original intent

Previously, those provisions have been rarely, if ever, invoked,⁵ and the congressional report on the Immigration Act of 1990 specifically noted at the time that the intent of the provision on denial of entry was that it “be used sparingly and not merely because there is a likelihood that an alien will make critical remarks about the United States or its policies.” The report further states that provision might, for instance, be used, “when an alien’s mere entry to the United States could result in imminent harm to the lives or property of United States persons abroad or to property of the United States government abroad (as occurred with the former Shah of Iran), or when an alien’s entry would violate a treaty or international agreement to which the United States is party.”⁶

The second Trump administration has interpreted its discretionary authority far more broadly, with the State Department noting in its June 18 announcement, “Every visa adjudication is a national security decision.”⁷

In an internal memorandum on March 8, 2025, John Armstrong in the State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs argued that the specific activities of Mahmoud Khalil and another activist fit within the “compelling foreign policy interest” and “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” provisions, because allowing them “to remain in the United States undermines the US policy to combat anti-Semitism and efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States. ... [Further,] the foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and US citizens, and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective.”⁸

Documents

Cite this resource

AIP Policy Research, “International students and freedom of apeech, 1,” Visa and immigration policy guide, American Institute of Physics, 2026, https://www.aip.org/research/visa-immigration/freedom-of-speech-1.

Last updated

March 7, 2026