The Trump administration is once again tightening its immigration policies, this time by expanding social media vetting requirements for green card applicants already legally residing in the United States. The move, announced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on March 5, has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups and legal experts who warn that it could have a chilling effect on free speech.
What the Policy Entails
Under the proposed rule, individuals applying for lawful permanent residency (green cards) or asylum will be required to disclose their social media handles as part of the application process. USCIS argues that the policy is necessary to enhance national security screening, citing President Trump's executive order, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.
While visa applicants abroad have been required to provide their social media identifiers since 2019, this expansion would apply to immigrants already in the U.S., intensifying government scrutiny of lawful residents. The administration claims this measure is crucial for identity verification and security assessments, but critics argue it is an overreach that threatens fundamental rights.
Free Speech and Civil Liberties Concerns
Opponents of the policy say it risks violating the First Amendment by discouraging immigrants from freely expressing their opinions online. The fear of government monitoring could lead applicants to self-censor their speech, especially on political or religious matters.
“This policy undermines the fundamental values that make America a beacon of freedom, including free speech, privacy, and human rights,” one public commenter noted.
Civil rights groups have also raised concerns about selective enforcement, warning that the policy could disproportionately target certain groups, including Muslim and Arab applicants who have expressed support for Palestinian human rights. The recent detention and deportation of individuals based on their online activity have only amplified fears.
For instance, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and green card holder who was detained and labeled “pro-Hamas” by the Trump administration, underscores the risks of such a policy. Similarly, Brown University doctor Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese national on an H-1B visa, was deported after Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials reviewed her phone and flagged her social media activity.
The Potential for Government Overreach
Legal experts caution that the USCIS policy could pave the way for even more invasive surveillance of immigrants, extending beyond the application process. Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, warned that this type of data collection could be used to monitor individuals long after they receive their green cards.
Additionally, there are concerns about how the data will be used and whether it will lead to unfair denials based on vague or politically motivated determinations. The recent agreement between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to share taxpayer data has heightened fears that the government is increasing its surveillance apparatus to facilitate mass deportations.
What Comes Next?
USCIS is currently accepting public comments on the proposal until May 5, and the majority of feedback thus far has been overwhelmingly negative. Advocacy groups are urging the administration to reconsider, arguing that the policy is unconstitutional and would lead to discriminatory enforcement.
At Saluja Law, we are closely monitoring this development and its implications for green card applicants, asylum seekers, and other immigrants. If you are concerned about how this policy could impact your application or residency status, it is crucial to seek legal guidance. Our firm is committed to defending the rights of immigrants and challenging policies that undermine constitutional freedoms.
For more information or legal assistance, contact Saluja Law today.