Trump Administration Proposes Social Media Review for Immigrants Seeking U.S. Residency

The Trump administration is pushing for expanded powers to review the social media activity of immigrants seeking permanent residency in the United States. Under a new proposal from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), applicants for naturalization, green cards, and asylum may soon be required to submit their social media handles for review. USCIS claims that this measure aims to strengthen identity verification, enhance national security, and improve public safety screenings. Currently, visa applicants must already disclose their social media accounts, but this expansion would apply to those looking to settle in the U.S. permanently. However, the proposal has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it could be used to target individuals based on their political views or online activity. Concerns are growing that the White House could leverage immigration policies to block critics from obtaining legal status.

The administration is already facing backlash for its enforcement tactics. Cases have emerged where immigrants are being targeted for deportation based on their social media activity. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and legal U.S. resident, is facing deportation due to his participation in pro-Palestinian protests. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleges he engaged in activities aligned with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Badar Khan Suri, an Indian academic at Georgetown University, is also facing deportation over claims that he shared Hamas-related propaganda online. In another case, France accused the U.S. of barring a French scientist from entry due to personal messages criticizing the Trump administration’s academic policies. DHS, however, claimed he was denied entry for allegedly taking confidential information from Los Alamos National Laboratory—though no concrete evidence was provided.

Civil rights advocates warn that expanding social media surveillance could lead to privacy violations and potential abuse. Many fear that immigrants could be unfairly scrutinized or denied legal status based on their opinions rather than legitimate security concerns. With growing criticism, the proposal raises serious questions about how the government defines security risks and whether it is crossing a line into political suppression. As debates unfold, the potential impact of these policies on immigrants and their freedom of expression remains a major concern.