The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a proposal to collect social media handles from all individuals applying for visas, green cards, or U.S. citizenship. This move is part of a broader effort to enhance national security by identifying potential threats before granting immigration benefits.
While the policy aligns with the tougher border security stance of former President Donald Trump, it has raised serious concerns among immigration experts and civil rights advocates. Critics warn that misinterpretations of social media activity could result in wrongful denials, increased government surveillance, and violations of privacy and free speech rights.
As part of the proposal, the USCIS has opened a 60-day public-comment period, allowing individuals and organizations to express their opinions before the rule is finalized.
A New Vetting Standard for Immigrants
The proposal to collect social media information follows an executive order signed by Trump titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The order mandates that immigration officers gather all relevant data to assess the eligibility and security risk of applicants.
Currently, certain visa applicants applying from outside the U.S. are already required to disclose their social media accounts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter). USCIS officers review these accounts to identify any potential links to criminal or terrorist activities. However, this scrutiny does not yet extend to immigrants who are already in the country and applying for permanent residency or naturalization.
Under the new proposal, social media vetting would be expanded to an estimated 2.5 million applicants per year, covering nine different immigration application forms. This change would add an estimated 285,999 extra hours of work annually for USCIS staff.
Concerns Over Privacy, Free Speech, and Due Process
While the government argues that social media screening is essential for fraud detection and public safety, critics caution that this policy could have severe unintended consequences.
Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, voiced concerns about the lack of clear guidelines on how social media content would be evaluated. She noted that immigration application forms are already highly complex and often require legal assistance. Adding social media screening introduces another layer of uncertainty, especially since there is no clear definition of what constitutes concerning online behavior.
Civil rights advocates fear that immigration officers, who are not social media experts, may misinterpret posts, jokes, or political opinions, leading to unjustified detentions or application denials.
Saira Hussain, a senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, warned that this policy could create a chilling effect on free speech. She pointed out that many immigrants applying for citizenship or green cards have lived in the U.S. for decades, sometimes 30 or 40 years, and may now feel compelled to self-censor their online activity out of fear that their opinions could be misinterpreted and used against them.
Additionally, some legal experts question whether USCIS officers have the necessary expertise to accurately analyze online behavior, particularly given the vast number of social media platforms and the potential for language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, and out-of-context posts.
Political and National Security Justifications
Defending the proposal, the USCIS has argued that social media screening is not a new practice but rather an expansion of existing vetting procedures.
A USCIS spokesperson told Newsweek that collecting social media handles would help detect fraud and national security threats more effectively. The agency emphasized that applicants must already provide extensive personal information, and this addition simply allows immigration officers to verify applicants’ backgrounds more thoroughly.
Trump’s executive order also justifies the policy by asserting that immigrants must be properly vetted to ensure they do not pose a threat to the country’s safety, culture, government, or institutions. It argues that failing to properly screen social media history could allow individuals with hostile intentions to enter or remain in the U.S. under false pretenses.
The proposal has reignited debates over government overreach and the balance between security and civil liberties. Critics argue that, without strict guidelines, this policy could open the door to discriminatory targeting based on religion, political views, or nationality.
For instance, immigration law firm Siri Glimstad noted in a 2024 report that while monitoring social media can be a useful tool, it remains controversial because public posts can be taken out of context, and private messages could be obtained through more invasive means in the future.
Another pressing issue is whether immigrants will be forced to disclose private social media accounts or encrypted communications, which could raise Fourth Amendment concerns related to privacy and unreasonable searches.
Before implementing the policy, the USCIS has invited public feedback for 60 days, during which civil rights organizations, legal experts, and the general public can submit their concerns.
While the agency claims there will be no additional costs for adding social media vetting to the immigration process, critics warn that the real cost may be in legal battles and challenges to civil liberties. If the policy moves forward as planned, lawsuits from immigration and privacy advocates are likely, setting the stage for a prolonged legal showdown.
The USCIS proposal to collect social media handles from visa, green card, and citizenship applicants represents a major shift in the way the U.S. government evaluates immigrants. While national security concerns remain paramount, the expansion of social media vetting raises serious questions about privacy, freedom of speech, and potential government overreach.
With the public-comment period now open, this is a crucial moment for policymakers, legal experts, and advocacy groups to weigh in on how far the government should go in scrutinizing digital footprints.
As the debate unfolds, the outcome of this policy will likely set a precedent for future immigration practices, potentially influencing how governments worldwide use social media data in national security and immigration decisions.
