A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to broaden the collection of immigrants’ social media data is drawing criticism from privacy and civil liberties advocates, who warn it could suppress free expression and political engagement in the U.S.
The policy would build upon an existing rule from the State Department, which has required most visa applicants to disclose their social media handles for the past six years. Under the new plan, DHS would begin gathering that information from a wider pool of individuals— including long-term residents, green card holders, and those applying for asylum, citizenship, and employment-based visas.
Critics argue that this marks a significant expansion of surveillance and poses a threat to First Amendment rights, especially for people who already live and work in the U.S. The fear is that requiring individuals to hand over their online identities could chill speech and discourage participation in political movements or controversial discussions.
While the government has long had the ability to view publicly available social media content, systematically collecting this data from applicants is a more aggressive approach. Immigration lawyers say that although they haven’t seen many outright denials due to online activity, they have encountered cases where clients were questioned over discrepancies found on platforms like LinkedIn.
The original push for social media disclosures did not begin with political leaders but came from career officials in intelligence and national security, who argued the data could help detect criminal behavior. But free speech advocates say there is little evidence the strategy actually improves security outcomes—and plenty of evidence it causes harm.
A 2019 lawsuit brought by two U.S.-based film organizations challenged the social media disclosure rule, arguing it imposes undue burdens on millions of applicants each year. The case is still pending after moving through federal courts, with the plaintiffs insisting the policy leads to self-censorship and deters international collaboration, especially in academic and cultural fields.
The ripple effects, critics say, extend beyond foreign nationals. American organizations and citizens may lose out on opportunities to host speakers or collaborators from abroad who are reluctant to share personal data that could be passed along to governments in their home countries.
Attorneys also worry about the potential for these policies to evolve into tools for targeting dissent. Some reports suggest plans to use artificial intelligence to scan for expressions of political opinion, especially those related to sensitive international issues. While experts caution that current AI capabilities are limited and prone to misinterpretation, the idea of automated surveillance still raises serious red flags.
The White House previously called for a review of such programs, citing concerns about their effectiveness, but ultimately allowed them to continue. Meanwhile, agencies have offered little transparency about how the collected data is being used or evaluated.
With growing concern about the future of digital privacy, many immigrants and visitors are left questioning whether they must now carefully curate their online presence—not just to avoid misunderstandings, but to protect their ability to live, study, or work in the United States.
