
Marco Rubio's student visa pause makes no sense at all
Patricia Lopez,
Tribune News Service
This is a season of anxiety for international students in the US, who find themselves demonised by the Trump administration as it devises new ways to limit their numbers. The latest tactic came in a diplomatic cable from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to US embassies and consulates abroad, ordering a halt to the student visa interviews necessary to enter the country. The reason? An as-yet-undevised policy to further scrutinise the social media histories of students in a search for ... what exactly? No one seems quite sure. It was President Donald Trump who, in his first term, initiated screenings of student visa applicants' social media histories, looking primarily for terrorists or terrorist sympathiders. The policy became one of the few that was maintained by President Joe Biden when he succeeded Trump.
In April of this year, Homeland Security said it also would begin monitoring international students' social media for evidence of antisemitism. That raised alarms among free-speech advocates because of the administration's tendency to conflate opposition to the Israeli government's policies or the war in Gaza with antisemitism. At the time, Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement that the administration was 'pursuing witch hunts into American colleges.' Now comes another amorphous, arbitrary standard that, even before implementation, is sending shock waves through an already traumatised international student community. Rubio's 'pause' on new student visa interviews will last until his department issues 'guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applicants,' according to the cable. It does not specify what might disqualify an applicant or what the State Department will be looking for. It does not even say when the guidelines will be available nor when new interviews will resume, although on Thursday the department announced a pilot program to vet Harvard University's visa applicants for antisemitism. That cable advised those doing the vetting to consider 'whether the lack of any online presence, or having social media accounts restricted to 'private' or with limited visibility, may be reflective of evasiveness.'
That is an unconscionable level of opacity for students whose biggest sin is wanting to come to the U.S. to further their education and who have a limited window in which to pursue such opportunities. Recall that the last administration-announced 'pause' was to the US Refugee Admissions Program back in January. That was four months ago. It's still in effect. Bizarrely, Rubio's decision even includes J-1 visa applicants for the State Department's own Exchange Visitor Program. Often those relate to cultural visits, summer work or other education-related travel. But that program also includes physicians and International Medical Graduates, who often serve in teaching hospitals and medically underserved rural areas or other hard-to-staff roles. These J-1 applicants already run a substantial gauntlet of vetting just to reach the interview stage. Finally, there is the conundrum of how the State Department will implement this enhanced vetting even as it plans huge cuts to its footprint and workforce.
Trump earlier this year signed an executive order axing budgets at embassies and consulates. In April, CNN reported that according to internal State Department documents, up to 30 embassies and consulates overseas could be closed and others could see reductions. Those kinds of cuts are at odds with the plan to increase the vetting of international students, who already go through exhaustive checks in their attempts to enter the US.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers is right when he says that 'all this is just going to scare people away from the United States, people that might come here, get an education, stay here, make some really important progress in some area ... It's just all wrong-headed.' Wisconsin alone had more than 15,000 international students in the 2023-24 school year, according to a study by NAFSA, the National Association of International Educators. That stimulated the state economy by an estimated $541 million. Multiply that by every state and it's easy to see the damage from restricting foreign students won't only be felt by colleges and universities. Fanta Aw, executive director of NAFSA, said in a statement that international students 'already represent the most tracked and vetted category of nonimmigrants in the United States,' calling the pause unnecessary and the additional scrutiny 'a poor use of taxpayer dollars.'
And the State Department is unlikely to draw the line at students. Rubio could also easily crack down on business visas, tourist visas, H-1B work visas and others. Despite the fear fostered by the Trump administration's policies, the intellectual richness of an American education remains a potent draw. And while Trump may be happy to set the bar close to zero for foreign students, few outside his MAGA base would agree. The benefits the students bring are indisputable, both in talent and economic impact. The swelling numbers of international students over the last few decades affirm this nation's primacy, spreading American values through 'soft' diplomatic power. America First cannot become America Alone, isolated and parochial. Whether they remain here or return to their native countries, we should hope these international students remember their time here fondly — not with fear.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. (Reporting by Suzanne McGee in Providence, Rhode Island; Additional reporting by Saqib Ahmed in New York; Editing by Alden Bentley and Matthew Lewis)

The National
2 hours ago
- The National
AI and taxes: How Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' could reshape the global tech landscape
Although President Donald Trump 's much touted "big, beautiful bill" largely revolves around tax cuts – particularly for the wealthiest Americans – it could also shape artificial intelligence developments for decades to come. Tucked into the legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives but still needs approval from the Senate is a provision that would limit the ability of all 50 US states to enact laws that regulate AI, at least temporarily. Within the current form of the tax bill endorsed by Mr Trump, states would be unable to obtain federal funding for various projects provided in the legislation of they passed any laws limiting AI in the next 10 years. It's not unusual for large tax and spending bills to include parts that might seem unrelated to the central intent of the legislation, but the AI provision has sparked backlash from both sides of the aisle. 'Make no mistake, we can have an AI revolution while also protecting the civil rights and liberties of everyday Americans," said Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward Markey several weeks ago, blasting the provision that limits the rights of states to regulate AI. Far-right Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has also spoken against the inclusion of AI stipulations in the proposed tax bill, saying that it unnecessarily burdens rural and conservative leaning parts of the country by potentially penalising them for enacting AI laws. She pointed out in a post on X that 40 state attorneys general had written a letter to Congress against the proposal. "It's not too late for the Senate to take it out," she added. According to the Cato Institute, as of 2024, at least 40 states had considered and at least 31 have passed various forms of laws to put guardrails on AI. Yet during his 2024 campaign for the presidency, Mr Trump came out swinging against what he saw as onerous AI regulations. "We will repeal Joe Biden's dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI Innovation, and imposes Radical Leftwing ideas on the development of this technology," the official 2024 Republican National Convention platform, largely composed by Trump campaign staffers, read. "In its place, Republicans support AI Development rooted in free speech and human flourishing." The proposal has likely been met with applause from various US technology majors as they pump billions into AI development to try to dominate what has already become a lucrative market. Yet public officials, labour groups and even some proponents of the technology have expressed concern over the potential for AI to cause unemployment, create user data security problems and prompt an energy crunch. Those anxieties have led to regulations passed at a local level to try to blunt any inadvertent impacts of AI. Many in Silicon Valley, however, remain concerned that if regulations become too burdensome, the US could lose its competitive advantage in the AI space to China and other countries deemed adversarial. To some extent, these concerns about regulation have already been acted on by the Trump White House as it seeks to ease AI chip export policies enacted by the Biden administration. If Mr Trump's "big, beautiful bill" passes with the current AI stipulations in place, proponents say it will guarantee US dominance in the AI sector and create a cascade effect where US technology is used for the technology's implementation around the world, potentially creating more allies and wealth. "This isn't federal overreach," said Neil Chilson, former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission during the first Trump administration and current head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, a non-profit organisation that supports emerging technologies. "It is a pragmatic, limited measure to slow the patchwork quilt of fifty state AI laws from becoming a wet blanket on federal legislation." However not all tech entrepreneurs are on board with limiting local and state ability to enact AI regulations. "A 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument," wrote Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei in an opinion piece for the New York Times. "Without a clear plan for a federal response, a moratorium would give us the worst of both worlds – no ability for states to act, and no national policy as a backstop." He added that local legislation often seeks to identify the dangers of AI and help fix it, therefore improving it in the long run. Mr Amodei, who is also a proponent of the technology export controls enacted by the Biden White House, recently warned that the fast-development of AI could "wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs". While Mr Amodei is in the minority among tech entrepreneurs, he is finding allies among media activism organisations like Common Sense, which describes itself as being "dedicated to improving the lives of kids and families by providing the trustworthy information". The group said that more than 60,000 people have signed a petition to protect states' rights to pass AI laws. "Senators should pay careful attention to the rising discontent over the proposed 10-year ban on AI safety laws and should strip it from the budget bill," said James Steyer, chief executive of Common Sense. "Banning state AI safety laws is not a budget matter and has no place in a budget bill." He described the 10-year-ban as "irresponsible and indefensible", in terms of how it leaves consumers and children "vulnerable to AI threats". The "big, beautiful bill" is still awaiting a vote in the Senate, and Republican leaders have said they are aiming to have it on the President's desk by Independence Day on July 4.


Middle East Eye
8 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Western media enabling Gaza genocide and rewriting history, say experts
As Israel's war on Gaza intensifies and expands across the Middle East, media analysts and human rights advocates are raising concerns over the lack of international accountability and the role of Western news outlets in shaping public perception of the conflict. At a panel hosted by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) in London on Saturday, experts accused mainstream Western media of contributing to the denial and distortion of atrocities unfolding in Gaza. The Centre for Media Monitoring (CFMM) presented findings highlighting how often leading media organisations downplay or dismiss claims of genocide. Faisal Hanif, a media analyst at CFMM, said the BBC had shut down references to genocide in its Gaza coverage more than 100 times over the past year. Omar al-Ghazzi, Associate Professor of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics, called the trend 'a war on history.' He warned that the use of media narratives as future historical sources could shape how upcoming generations understand the events in Gaza. The panel also pointed to specific language patterns in coverage. Hanif noted that the term 'massacre' appeared 18 times more often when referring to Hamas attacks than to Israeli attacks on Palestinians. He said this imbalance reflected a wider rhetorical bias and an uncritical acceptance of Israeli government claims—particularly those targeting local journalists in Gaza. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters British-Israeli journalist Rachel Shabi said Israel has consistently framed its ban on international reporters entering Gaza as a safety measure, while accusing Palestinian journalists of links to Hamas. She criticised international media outlets for accepting these narratives without challenge. 'Israeli society has taken a genocidal turn,' says Daniel Levy. Speaking at the Genocide in Gaza conference in London, he warns that Israel's war on Gaza marks a new phase of settler colonial overreach, backed by Western complicity. — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 29, 2025 'They fall for the trap without calling it out,' Shabi told the audience. She added that even when Palestinian voices are included, their suffering is often discredited or doubted. 'The media has not only excluded Palestinian voices conveyed through local journalists' reports, but, at times when it has included them, it has effectively put Palestinian victims 'on trial,' portraying them as unreliable narrators of their own stories and suffering.' 'A new dark age' Historian Avi Shlaim described Israel's media strategy as an aggressive propaganda campaign designed to suppress criticism by labelling opponents as antisemitic. Professor Martin Shaw, a leading scholar on war and genocide, said such tactics amounted to a third form of genocide denial—'implicatory denial'—where actors acknowledge atrocities but take no meaningful action. 'The media is starting to shift, but it still lags behind the reality,' Shaw said. 'Even when governments and media recognise genocide is taking place in Gaza, they don't act to stop it.' He argued that the era of rhetorical devices such as 'responsibility to protect' and 'humanitarian intervention' had ended. 'The powerful do what they want without dressing it up,' he added. Al-Ghazzi agreed, saying the West continues to control language and historical narrative, positioning itself as the sole 'moral arbitrator.' Speaking to Middle East Eye at the panel 'Genocide in Gaza, War on Iran: What's Next for Palestine?' part of the Genocide in Gaza conference organised by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) in London, Wadah Khanfar, founder and executive director of the… — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 29, 2025 The panel also connected media complicity to broader geopolitical ambitions. Wadah Khanfar, president of Al-Sharq Forum and former director general of Al Jazeera, said the West remains determined to engineer a 'new Middle East' and marginalise Arab voices in shaping the region's future. He singled out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him 'truly arrogant' for believing he can design that future alone. The panel agreed that Israel's impunity could further destabilise the region. Khanfar warned that the ongoing war may plunge the world into 'a new dark age.' He cited Israel's strikes on Iran as an example of escalating risk, arguing they push the Middle East towards either a nuclear-free zone or widespread nuclear deterrence. Broad disillusionment in Israel Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, questioned the viability of Israel's long-term strategy, suggesting it may be driving the country toward collapse. 'Is this the third Jewish kingdom?' he asked. Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC Read More » Speakers warned that Israel's actions were eroding the foundations of the international legal system. Tayab Ali, director of the ICJP, said international legal frameworks remain 'excellent in theory' but are selectively applied in practice. 'This selectivity reinforces Israel's belief that its rights will be protected—even in the face of violations targeting Palestinians,' Ali said. Levy criticised the Western defence narrative that assumes peace will follow Iran's elimination, calling it legally flawed and strategically naive. Ali added that Israel's strikes on Iran violate international law under the principle of self-defence. He said growing public scepticism—even within Israel—shows that official justifications for military actions are becoming harder to sustain. Levy pointed to a rising reluctance among Israelis to report for military reserve duty. 'There's a broader disillusionment,' he said. 'More and more Israelis see these campaigns as leading the country toward a place of no return.'