US visa amendment: Pakistani students applying instructed to make social media accounts ‘public'
View this post on Instagram
The amendment aims to look out for signs of hostility towards the US on these platforms, as well as 'those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests,' according to information available on the website.
Business Recorder tried to reach out to the US embassy in Pakistan for comment, but received no response.
All information available will be used for visa screening and vetting and any omissions will result in denial and ineligibility for future US visas.
This is the latest amendment US visa applications, which since 2019 have required applicants to provide social media identifiers.
In May 2025, the U.S. State Department directed embassies worldwide, including in Pakistan, to pause scheduling of new student/exchange (F, M, J) visa interviews to expand social-media vetting. This suspension did not affect existing appointments – only new ones were halted.
Recent developments
These developments follow recent crackdowns at elite U.S. campuses,(Columbia, Harvard) for political activism (especially pro-Palestine protests) have made many families wary.
US President Donald Trump has criticized Harvard faced backlash over its handling of pro-Palestinian student protests and allegations of antisemitism and has so far
The perils of Harvard-gate
The administration has already frozen ~$2–3 billion in federal grants/contracts and is now threatening to withdraw all federal research dollars, student aid, and possibly revoke tax-exempt status
A presidential proclamation barred new F/M/J visas for Harvard alone—a first-of-its-kind move targeting one university.
Last week, Harvard and the University of Toronto unveiled a contingency plan that would allow select Harvard graduate students to continue their studies in Canada if U.S. visa restrictions prevent them from re-entering the United States.
Such developments also risk losing out on a generation of high-potential South Asian students – especially from Pakistan.
Pakistani students are increasingly exploring other study-abroad markets, especially those with simpler visa processes and post-study work options. The recent depreciation of the rupee against the US dollar is also likely to nudge students elsewhere.
The recent disruptions have already nudged many toward Canada, Australia, the UK, and even Germany or Türkiye.
Families are also edging towards the Middle East, due to its proximity and the proliferation in quality higher education institutions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
39 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Investors head into Trump tariff deadline benumbed and blase
SINGAPORE/NEW YORK: Global investors are heading into U.S. President Donald Trump's Wednesday deadline for trade tariffs palpably unexcited and prepared for a range of benign scenarios that they believe are already priced in. Just days before the end of a 90-day pause he announced on his April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs, Trump said the first batch of letters outlining the tariff levels they would face on exports to the United States would be sent to 12 countries on Monday. Investors who have been tracking this date for months expect more details to emerge in the coming days and protracted uncertainty too, anticipating Trump will not be able to complete deals with all of America's trading partners in the coming week. And they are not overly concerned. 'The market has gotten much more comfortable, more sanguine, when it comes to tariff news,' said Jeff Blazek, co-chief investment officer of multi-asset at Neuberger Berman in New York. 'The markets think that there is enough 'squishiness' in the deadlines – absent any major surprise – to not be too unsettled by more tariff news and believe that the worst-case scenarios are off the table now.' Both the tariff levels and effective dates have become moving targets. Trump said on Friday that tariffs ranging up to 70% could go into effect on August 1, levels far higher than the 10%-50% range he announced in April. So far, the U.S. administration has a limited deal with Britain and an in-principle agreement with Vietnam. Deals that had been anticipated with India and Japan have failed to materialize, and there have been setbacks in talks with the European Union. World stocks are meanwhile at record highs, up 11% since April 2. They fell 14% in three trading sessions after that announcement but have since rallied 24%. 'If Liberation Day was the earthquake, the tariff letters will be the aftershocks. They won't quite have the same impact on markets even if they are higher than the earlier 10%,' said Rong Ren Goh, a portfolio manager in the fixed income team at Eastspring Investments in Singapore. 'This financial system is so inundated with liquidity that it is hard to cash up or delever at the risk of lagging the markets, with April serving as a painful reminder for many who derisked and were then forced to chase the relentless recovery in the subsequent weeks.' Taxes and the FED Investors have also been distracted by weeks of wrangling in Congress over Trump's massive tax and spending package, which he signed into law on Friday. Stock markets have celebrated the passage of the bill, which makes Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent, while bond investors are wary the measures could add more than $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes closed at record highs on Friday, notching a third week of gains. Europe's STOXX 600 benchmark is up 9% in three months. Musk announces forming of 'America Party' in further break from Trump But the risks of tariff-related inflation have weighed on U.S. Treasuries and the dollar, and jostled expectations for Federal Reserve policy. Rate futures show traders no longer expect a Fed rate cut this month and are pricing in a total of just two quarter-point reductions by year-end. The dollar has suffered a knock to its haven reputation from the dithering on tariffs. The dollar index , which reflects the U.S. currency's performance against a basket of six others, has had its worst first half of the year since 1973, declining some 11%. It has fallen by 6.6% since April 2 alone. 'The markets are discounting a return to tariff levels of 35%, 40% or higher, and anticipating an across-the-board level of 10% or so,' said John Pantekidis, chief investment officer at TwinFocus in Boston. Pantekidis is cautiously optimistic about the outlook for U.S. stocks this year, but the one variable he is watching closely is interest rate levels. For now he expects to see interest rates dip in the second half, 'but if the bond market worries about the impact of the bill and rates go up, that's a different scenario.'
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Live from Glastonbury: the resistance will be televised
Glastonbury 2025 was always going to be charged, but few expected the seismic waves sent rippling through the global cultural sphere when Bob Vylan, mid-performance on the Left Field stage, roared out the chant "Death, death to the IDF" to a crowd erupting in cheers. The moment, aired uncut by the BBC, was joined hours later by Belfast rap group Kneecap voicing support for Palestine from the West Holts stage. Mo Chara, one of the trio's frontmen, wore a Palestinian keffiyeh as he led chants of 'Free Palestine' and 'F*ck Keir Starmer', calling out the UK prime minister for his support of Israel and demanding the release of Mo Chara from pending terrorism charges over a previous protest. The group's set also projected slogans declaring Israel guilty of genocide, and encouraged solidarity with Palestine Action. The crowd responded with a sea of Palestinian flags, and their performance quickly went viral on TikTok, where unofficial streams racked up over 1.8 million views. Within days, Glastonbury organisers quietly cancelled Kneecap's planned encore appearances, citing security and 'operational risk' after complaints flooded in. The move only inflamed supporters, who accused the festival of bowing to political pressure. In the hours after both performances, social media combusted. Outrage and solidarity, condemnation and defence flooded in equal measure. The BBC found itself in the crosshairs for platforming, however accidentally, what many called 'incendiary' messages, while others framed them as essential acts of resistance. This was an unwelcome addition to the BBC's already fraying relationship with audiences over coverage of the Palestine-Israel war. The broadcaster has been criticised repeatedly for a toothless coverage of the genocide in Gaza, under the pretext of maintaining a policy of both-sides reporting. The media corporation has failed to contextualise Israel's onslaught in Gaza as a humanitarian disaster. Only weeks ago, it quietly pulled from its schedule a harrowing documentary about Israel carrying out target killings of doctors in Gaza, prompting fierce accusations of self-censorship. That film is now being independently released, a damning testament to how far even a public broadcaster has retreated from its stated mission to inform without fear or partiality. Glastonbury, Britain's most hallowed musical gathering, has long occupied a space where counterculture and establishment jostle for attention. From Banksy installations to the rants of politically-minded performers, Glasto has provided a literal stage for dissent. This year, as the war in Gaza stretched into its most horrifying months, the festival became a universal platform for moral urgency. Bob Vylan's blunt invocation of 'Death to the IDF' — the Israel Defence Forces — was for many a cry of rage against a military juggernaut seen as responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths. For others, it crossed a line, interpreted as a violent incitement or an antisemitic attack. While cancelling Kneecap, for their chants and slogans for Palestine, was reminiscent of US campuses clamping down peaceful protests supporting freedom for Palestine. This is where art collides with politics in its rawest form. These artists did not arrive at their words casually, or in a vacuum. Bob Vylan and Kneecap belong to communities shaped by a history of state violence, their art will inevitably echo the strains of protest music. As punk rock and rap artists, their invective does not adopt the polite language of policymakers but the fury of the disenfranchised, the language of those who see no recourse in a world that ignores their pain. That is what protest music is meant to do: to jolt and provoke. It goes against being palatable by its very nature. But Glastonbury is also a vast commercial machine, broadcast to millions and now somewhat even a middle-class rite of passage. That friction between raw protest and the festival's curated, corporate-backed spectacle has come into sharp focus this year. Sure — here's a clearer rewording while keeping the same idea: The BBC, once again, finds itself at the centre of this tension. Some saw it as dangerous and a lapse of judgment that BBC cameras and live broadcast didn't censor Bob Vylan. Others see as these acts of protest as necessary. That is the challenge of public broadcasting: to reflect a divided society where one person's incitement is another person's cry for freedom. In the aftermath, politicians, pundits, and public figures lined up with their ritual condemnations. Some accused the performers of stoking hate, arguing that calls for the destruction of the IDF risked inflaming anti-Jewish sentiment at a time of rising antisemitism in Britain. Others pointed out that Gaza had become an open-air graveyard, with entire families obliterated by bombs. Where, they asked, was the outrage for them? It is a question echoing far beyond Glastonbury's rolling hills — one that cuts to the heart of how freedom of expression is measured, and whose pain is seen as legitimate. What this moment reveals, above all, is a generational chasm in how cultural resistance is framed. The younger festivalgoers, many of them radicalised by images of Gaza's devastation, heard in Bob Vylan a truth-telling. Of course — here's a rewrite that focuses on a more conservative view of free speech rather than historical trauma: Their elders, often holding more conservative views on the limits of free speech, heard the chants as crossing a dangerous line into hate speech. No festival as storied as Glastonbury can accommodate both these perspectives without deep fractures. And yet, these ruptures are essential. Political art is meant to disturb. It is meant to pick at scabs we might prefer to leave alone. From the Vietnam-era protest songs of Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, to the anthems of Public Enemy railing against systemic racism, artists have always tested the boundaries of what the public is willing to hear. In the 2000s, even pop acts like the Pussycat Dolls ventured into protest, most notably with 'I Don't Need a Man' becoming an accidental feminist rallying cry at a time when women were pushing back against media sexism — a small but significant statement about agency. Major political movements have always found a soundtrack. The anti-apartheid struggle had the power of Miriam Makeba, while Rage Against the Machine raged against American imperialism with blistering verses that still echo on protest lines today. Beyoncé brought the imagery of Black Panther resistance to the Super Bowl, in front of millions, and paid the price of conservative outrage. After 9/11, artists from System of a Down to the Dixie Chicks challenged America's wars, at enormous personal and commercial cost. From 'Ohio' protesting the Kent State shootings to today's chants for Palestinian liberation, artists have given language to anger and solidarity in ways politicians cannot. Across the Muslim world, musicians like Tunisia's Emel Mathlouthi, Palestine's DAM, and Iran's Shahin Najafi have carried this same tradition forward, using song to challenge oppression and demand justice, often at great personal risk. The challenge, then, is for the rest of us — audiences, institutions, and broadcasters — to grapple honestly with that discomfort rather than try to erase it. Protest music and performance will continue to break through polite silence, because as long as injustice persists, someone will step on a stage and name it, whether we are ready to hear it or not. Placing a finger on the pulse of a world standing at the precipice of political fracture, Bob Vylan and Kneecap have cracked open the most vital question for all of us really: how many civilian deaths must a war rack up before outrage is no longer taboo? And who gets to decide whether that outrage is acceptable speech or criminal incitement? Upon having his US visa revoked, Bob Vylan reiterated his unwavering solidarity to the cause of Palestine. This is now perhaps the most audacious slap in the face of Israel's heinous despotism by one person who grabbed the chance to raise his voice against genocide. Glastonbury 2025 will be remembered not just for its music, but for sending message to the global society forced to look itself in the mirror. Amid the anthems and encore sets, that mirror reflected a nation divided by history, by fear, and delusions.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The big cruel ‘beauty' of Trump's bill
In a cruel twist of irony, America's Independence Day is being celebrated with the largest upward transfer of wealth in the country's history. By signing the so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' into law on July 4, President Donald Trump has turned Robin Hood into a bogeyman – and made the rich the rightful folk heroes. With the sweeping tax-and-spending package, Trump has unleashed a legislative juggernaut that brings Karl Marx's warning into brutal focus: 'Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery at the opposite pole.' The bill robs the bottom 90 per cent of Americans of around $700 per household, while funnelling over $6,000 into the pockets of the wealthiest fifth, engineering misery on an industrial scale. With Yale's Budget Lab and the Congressional Budget Office projecting a $3.4 trillion hole in the federal budget over the next decade – before counting interest – it is an ideological project in plutocratic redistribution. In a staged heist against the social safety net, Medicaid, SNAP, clean energy credits and even lifesaving foreign aid are set to become collateral damage in a grand design to enrich the few and abandon the rest. It is a dagger at the heart of America's social contract. Or, in Bernie Sanders' remarks on the floor of the Senate: 'It is the most dangerous piece of legislation in the modern history of our country.' 'It is a gift to the billionaire class, while causing massive pain for low-income and working-class Americans. Actually though, M. President, I'm wrong. This is not a gift to the billionaire class. They paid for it,' he quipped. In Arkansas alone, more than 100,000 people stand to lose their Medicaid coverage. Food stamp recipients will now face stiffer work requirements, a bitter irony at a time when grocery bills are soaring and rural job markets remain fragile. Across the country, the implications are chilling. Already struggling rural hospitals may face accelerated shutdowns. Families living paycheck to paycheck will be squeezed even harder. At the same time, tax cuts for billionaires are made permanent, fossil fuel subsidies are revived with a vengeance and the deficit balloons by an additional $3.5 trillion. Who wins and who loses? Independent analyses from the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) show that the bill will kick 16 million people off their health insurance, gut nutrition programmes and make college even harder to afford — all to bankroll massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The bill adds a whopping $3 trillion to the national debt, setting the stage for long-term economic drag and a grim inheritance for younger generations. Households making under $23,000 will lose around $1,600 annually, mostly from Medicaid and SNAP cuts, nearly 4% of their total income. Families earning under $55,000 a year will see a net loss in resources. Meanwhile, the middle class gets table scraps, a meagre 0.5–0.8% gain, barely enough to offset rising living costs. At the top, it's raining gold. Households making over $700,000 will gain $12,000 a year, not counting estate tax windfalls. Meanwhile, the top 10% rake in 68% of the bill's total benefits. Those earning over $500,000 will receive a $168 billion tax cut in 2027 alone while people making over $1 million will see a $93.6 billion tax windfall that same year. For the lowest earners, the pain is twofold: many will actually see tax increases, with those making less than $15,000 a year facing a 12% hike in 2027, ballooning to 73% by 2033 once temporary credits expire. Even crueller than the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the grandly-titled bill doles out nearly double the tax break to millionaires while stripping aid from those who need it most. In fact, TCJA at least gave modest cuts to low-income earners, but the "beauty" of Trump's latest attack lies in its spectacular theft. Generational theft The long-term hit is generational. Penn Wharton's model finds that a 40-year-old median-income earner will lose $7,500 over a lifetime under the bill. However, a 70-year-old with the same income will be $17,500 richer. In other words, the American Dream has been restructured into a senior savings plan, just hang in there till retirement and hope capitalism does not kill you first. For the young, the pursuit of happiness now comes with a warning label: not applicable during your lifetime. In a nutshell, the bill is a ledger of who matters and who does not in Trump's America. The arithmetic is brutally simple: if you're a CEO, hedge fund manager or a defence contractor, your stock just went up. However, if you are a working-class parent, a disabled veteran, a retiree or a single mother in rural Arkansas, you're collateral damage in a cynical calculation. While older, higher-income Americans stand to gain in the short term through generous tax breaks, younger workers and future generations are left footing the bill, both figuratively and literally. Because younger earners are typically in lower tax brackets, they benefit the least from income tax cuts. At the same time, they are disproportionately exposed to deep cuts in Medicaid and student aid — two critical lifelines for young families and students. Medicaid now covers four in ten hospital births in the US, meaning today's cuts are tomorrow's childhood health crises. As Jessica Riedl of the conservative Manhattan Institute puts it, even from the right: 'In the short term, the benefits are certainly tilted towards higher earners, which is often a good proxy for age.' However, the heaviest blow comes in the form of long-term debt. The bill adds $3 trillion to the national debt, which economists predict will push interest rates higher and eat away at future federal budgets, squeezing out investment in education, infrastructure and social services. 'There is an obvious intergenerational transfer here,' says John Ricco of the Yale Budget Lab, which estimates that by 2055, when today's newborns turn 30, the average annual mortgage will cost $4,000 more because of the bill's impact on interest rates. 'Making America white again' Moreover, the bill's border provisions read like the fevered dreams of a security‑state lobbyist. ICE's budget balloons by an order of magnitude, rippling from roughly $10 billion today to over $100 billion in a few short years. Funding for walls, detention facilities and mass deportations soars, reflecting a dark fusion of nationalist spectacle and capitalist discipline. Immigrants, refugees and asylum‑seekers become pawns in a broader project of social control, as the state draws lines in sand and steel across its own land. The Pentagon budget is padded by another $150 billion, ICE gets tens of billions for deportations and even a private border-enforcement army and massive wall project are shoehorned in. In short, if $1 is cut from Medicaid, $1.50 flies to police and walls. As Washington Monthly notes, the bill 'lavishes funding on ICE to raise a private army and set up detention camps'. The movement 'is primarily about… 'owning the libs,' 'Making America White Again,' and cruelty against the marginalised'. Public opinion polls tell the rest of the story: close to half of Americans – 49 per cent – oppose the Big Beautiful Bill, while only 29 per cent support it. Even within Republican ranks, fiscal hawks and swing‑district representatives bristled at the eye‑popping deficits and social carnage baked into the legislation. Three‑headed hydra of class warfare From a leftist vantage point, the Big Beautiful Bill is a three‑headed hydra of class warfare, eco‑fascism and bio‑political abandonment. It rebrands austerity as patriotism, casting the poor as 'undeserving' parasites even as it showers the wealthy with boons. By shredding Medicaid, SNAP, and foreign‑aid programs, lawmakers legislate life‑and‑death outcomes for the poor, the elderly, children abroad and immunocompromised Americans alike. Green betrayal Climate leftists see the bill as an eco‑fascist manifesto: a blueprint for resource control through environmental destruction, with the state's coercive machinery gearing up to enforce a fossil‑fuel future at gunpoint. Perhaps the ugliest manifestation of the 'beautiful bill' is in its astonishing show of capitalism's climate death drive, an embrace of catastrophe for private profit, where planetary care is too high a price to pay. The bill's architects also saw fit to annihilate the scaffolding of the clean‑energy transition. With the stroke of a pen, the EV tax credit that buoyed nascent electric‑vehicle markets vanishes, wind and solar developers find their pipeline choked off and carbon‑capture investments are relegated to the dustbin. Environmental finance specialists forecast the loss of up to 250,000 clean‑energy jobs, even as household electricity bills spike by double digits. In effect, the legislation slams on the brakes of climate progress while flooring the accelerator on fossil‑fuel extraction – an eco‑dead end if there ever was one. The bill quietly scraps much of the Biden administration's clean-energy agenda. Solar and wind tax credits are repealed, even as fossil fuel subsidies persist. Analysts warn that by punishing solar and wind generation the law will devastate energy grids in red states like Texas. The bill is an eco-political undoing: the countryside continues to flood and burn while lawmakers dismantle the very buffers — renewables, efficiency programs and green jobs – that could soften the blow. Instead of weaning us off coal and oil, Congress doubles down on drilling and emissions, casting our children as future sacrifices. The irony is cruel: at a moment of record wildfires and hurricanes, politicians fetishize fossil fuel profits. By design, the working forests and windmills of tomorrow become victims to drive short-term windfall. The bill's very 'beauty' is in its ritualised cruelty. It taps into a perverse collective glee, inviting supporters to revel in the punishment of the 'lazy' and 'undeserving,' all while the architects of the legislation themselves benefit. The broader lesson is clear: the Big Beautiful Bill is the Empire striking back (internally, on its own unwanted), wielding fiscal hammers and regulatory scalpel alike to carve out a new world order – one where the poor are expendable, the planet dispensable and the state an instrument of predatory elites. It is a monstrous legislative conflation of class warfare, climate sabotage and state violence – an apex of neoliberal authoritarianism.
