As Trump Comes for Your Social Media, It's Time You Consider What's Worth Sharing
Agents of the Trump administration are increasingly using social media posts to crack down on immigrants, tourists, and even some U.S. citizens. Last month, a leaked document showed the State Department had crafted a new standard for reviewing the social media accounts of any foreign students planning to attend or even visit Harvard University. Legal immigrants may have benefits denied based on social media activity, and people expressing opinions or acting contrary to Trump are being detained at airports. Whether you're a U.S. citizen or not, it's time you reexamine how much of yourself you're willing to show publicly online.
Amid the ongoing travel turmoil that's made several countries institute warnings to foreign citizens planning trips to the U.S., I was looking for ways to make it more difficult for governments to use my social posts against me. That's when I was invited to use Block Party. It's not, by its nature, a politically charged app. With a $25 annual subscription, Block Party uses a browser plugin to help rein in your privacy settings on your various social media accounts with a simple checklist and easy-to-follow, step-by-step guides. Privatizing your social media accounts helps keep big tech from building data profiles based on your activity, which it then uses for targeted advertising, but it may not be enough to completely deter a visit from Customs and Border Protection as you muscle through airport security after coming to the States. [Editor's note: Getting thrown into another bin for targeted advertising isn't great either, but it's better than getting thrown into Guantanamo.] At the very least, it may make the jobs of federal agencies—or anybody looking for dirt on you based on your online activity—a little harder. For the time being, that might be enough to help you avoid being held up by U.S. officials for hours in an airport.
Trump Widens the Targets of Social Media Scrutiny
You can simply delete your profiles, but as somebody who still needs to remain active on social media, Block Party is one of the better options I've personally used to get into the weeds of my accounts' esoteric privacy settings. It even helps you find settings in some apps to keep AI from scraping your posts. Still, changing all your settings may not be enough to avoid all scrutiny. According to a Politico report on the leaked State Department document, the U.S. government imagines foreign students' lack of a social presence or privatized social media 'may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant's credibility.'
The Trump administration may ascribe this same standard to U.S. citizens. Already, there are concerning examples of agents targeting supposed Trump opponents. Left-wing influencer Hasan Piker said in May that he was detained and questioned for hours by Homeland Security after he came back to Chicago from France. In April, immigration agents detained Michigan-based attorney Amir Makled at an airport for more than an hour as he returned home from the Dominican Republic. The attorney was representing Columbia University students who had protested against the war in Palestine. Makled said feds requested he hand over his phone, and after 90 minutes of questioning, he eventually complied.
The situation is growing more constrained for non-citizens traveling to the U.S. Every individual has to decide for themselves what precautions they need to take when traveling as a citizen or non-citizen alike. Sophia Cope, the senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Gizmodo it's not an easy decision, and some people planning to visit the U.S. may be better off choosing a different destination. However, despite U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's proclamation that privatizing social media was somehow an indication of 'evasiveness,' it's still a good idea to privatize your socials before crossing the border to the U.S. And it's not just protesters who need to think long and hard about what thoughts of theirs are shared online. Nonprofit and government staff now have to consider whether their public presence necessitates drastic culling of their online profiles.
'We've definitely been seeing an uptick in interest given the activities of the government recently,' Tracy Chou, the founder and CEO of Block Party, told Gizmodo in a video interview. After Trump's inauguration, she said she's received interest from both current and former government workers from multiple federal agencies, afraid their previously innocuous social media posts could be used as ammunition for right-wing groups. Government workers weren't just trying to avoid the eyes of Trump and DOGE. Chou gave an example of people who worked in the Department of Justice's civil rights division who were trying to avoid attacks from right-wing groups online.
Some Apps Make It Easier to Avoid Social Media Scrutiny
You can find a loose gaggle of tutorials online for turning on social media privacy settings, but even an experienced user will be surprised by just how many settings there are to limit. You may also want to look into subscriptions such as DeleteMe or Kanary, which work to eliminate information data brokers have on you and remove data from some websites. Block Party is more concerned with restricting the data big tech companies can garner from your social accounts. Privacy settings for most apps are arcane—often deliberately so—and even if you're trying to privatize an account, you can still miss something.
Block Party currently works with X, LinkedIn, Facebook, Venmo, Instagram, Reddit, Strava, YouTube, Bluesky, and Google. Additionally, Block Party will only impact the mobile versions of TikTok and Snapchat. Chou said her team is planning to support more apps in the future. The app operates as a browser plugin that offers a checklist for your social accounts. Some settings can be done for you with the tap of a button, but various settings will take some attention on your part. On LinkedIn, Block Party can automatically turn off settings to 'represent company,' a sneaky setting used for sponsored ads about your employer. If I want to change the number of apps connected to my YouTube account, I have to click a link through the app and disable them manually, then mark the task as 'done.'
Even using Block Party, the process of tuning all your socials is time-consuming. After you're done, you may realize how many features of these apps depend on your private data. Block Party recommends you change YouTube settings to limit viewing history. Suddenly, I can't see which videos I've watched, making it harder to return to a YouTube essay I paused before going to sleep. This is the trade-off for privacy. You simply won't be able to use your apps in the same ways you used to.
There Is No Panacea for Privacy
Nina Jankowicz, the cofounder of The American Sunlight Project, which advocates against online disinformation, said she has started to advise people to lock down their social media not just for the sake of avoiding targeted ads, but to keep from being targeted by the government. She said she offers Block Party free to staff, but even that may not be enough in this age, where her activities as an advocate are receiving more and more scrutiny. Jankowicz said she started bringing a burner cell phone when she travels through and to the U.S.
Beyond massaging your social accounts, travelers need to start considering device security. Turning off biometric log-in when you travel is a good start, as experts say law enforcement has less legal liability to unlock your device if they flash your Face ID at your mug. You should avoid saving WhatsApp or Messenger chats to the cloud in case government agents manage to bypass phone security. VPNs, which help hide your IP address and keep you anonymous when online, are also good to have on hand. The fact of the matter is, U.S. officials have the legal ability to detain people at the airport, but as Cope stressed, the U.S. is not legally allowed to keep citizens from entering the U.S. without probable cause. Non-violent political opinions posted to social media still don't meet grounds for an arrest just because Trump is in office. At the same time, Trump's administration has continued to ignore court decrees, and his flaunting of the law may turn on American citizens as well. For now, it's best you know your rights. Refusing to hand over a phone to officers could delay you, but you're only legally required to establish your identity, not to share your phone with anybody. Again, knowing your rights can still lead to delays.
'If there's anything remotely controversial, I would delete that post, privatize the account, or even shut down the account,' Cope said. 'I want to emphasize again it's each individual person's choice, but I think for me, I'd rather not have the government have this particular data point or set of data points about me.'
The U.S. already knows what kind of chilling effect this abuse of social media has had on protest efforts. When I asked Jankowicz whether privatizing your social media can make it harder to organize, she responded bluntly: 'Yes.'
'Researchers are a lot more reticent to be on things like Signal group chats or on email chains and message boards,' she said. 'The toll it takes on attempting to muster a collaborative response on anything that's happening to the community is really difficult.'
Privatizing your social media can't be a panacea for your travel anxieties, especially if you still want to use these apps to communicate with friends or organize for causes you care about. The best it can do is make a government operator's job harder, and since there are so many accounts to monitor, you may slip through the dragnet. As time goes on, Trump will rely more on technology from firms like Palantir to compile a wider database on every citizen based on government data, according to a recent report from The New York Times. Whether you use apps like DeleteMe and Block Party in tandem or you go out and prune your posts and public persona, get ready for a far more constrained online existence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
4 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge again delays Abrego Garcia's release from Tennessee jail over deportation concerns
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia will stay in jail for now over concerns that he could be deported if he's released to await his trial on human smuggling charges, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled Monday. Abrego Garcia's attorneys had asked the judge to delay his release because of what they described as 'contradictory statements' by President Donald Trump's administration over what would happen to the Salvadoran national. The lawyers wrote in a brief to the court that 'we cannot put any faith in any representation made on this issue' by the Justice Department, adding that the 'irony of this request is not lost on anyone.' Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had been living in Maryland, became a flashpoint over Trump's hardline immigration policies when he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March. Facing mounting pressure and a Supreme Court order, Trump's Republican administration returned him this month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.'
Miami Herald
5 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Minnesota agriculture institute joins lawsuit against USDA to save grant funding
WASHINGTON - A Minnesota agriculture group says the Trump administration's canceling of so-called DEI grants in farm country broke the law and imperiled a food network initiative's future, in a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis joined other farm sector non-profits who said last week in a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Agriculture slashed grants for DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion - haphazardly and without individual review, violating federal law. The grants are intended to promote DEI efforts, from a San Francisco Bay Area initiative to boost LGBTQ and multiracial farmers to a New York soil health program. In Minnesota the IATP's grant for $111,695 to finance the MinnieAg Network, including tools for bridging farmers with food and ag industry officials, was terminated just six months from the finish line. That forced the organization to spend $30,000 from its own pocket to finish the grant's goals. "The abrupt and unexpected cancelation of our grant comes at a critical juncture just before we were planning to finalize our 'Farm and Food Systems 101′ resources to make this information available to all," said Erin McKee VanSlooten, Community Food Systems program director at IATP. VanSlooten said the cuts amount to "negating" 18 months of work, and she worries about the program's future. Upon taking office in January, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders aiming to root out government funding for equity, sustainability and diversity programs under the charges that such programs were discriminatory or wasteful. According to the ag groups' lawsuit, when USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted to X that she'd cancelled a grant in the Bay Area to "educate queer, trans and BIPOC urban farmers and consumers about food justice," she said her agency would refocus around "American farming, ranching and forestry." The lawsuit alleges staff at USDA did not properly review programs and the agency could not revoke funding previously granted. The plaintiffs cover a wide swath of agriculture groups working to build pathways for non-traditional farmers to enter the industry, improve soil health and build climate and food resilience. One nonprofit's grant work aimed to build more trees in cities to provide buffers from the heat. Another sought to teach producers about no-till farming. The lawsuit names USDA, Rollins and other Trump administration officials, including the acting director of the Department of Government Efficiency. In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said they would not comment on pending litigation. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.
