logo
Who is affected by new US visa rule that demands all social media accounts be made public?

Who is affected by new US visa rule that demands all social media accounts be made public?

Yahoo26-06-2025
People wishing to visit the USA may be forced to make their social media profiles public under new rules announced by the American Embassy in London.
On Thursday, the US embassy posted on X that anyone applying for an F, M or J nonimmigrant visa "are requested to adjust privacy settings on all of their personal social media accounts to 'public' to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility."
They said the change was effective immediately.
Last week, the US resumed applications for students wishing to study in the US after Trump suspended them.
The resumption came with increased vetting, like examining social media profiles.
Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media accounts to 'public' to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States… pic.twitter.com/PFTg8Os2x6
— U.S. Embassy London Consular (@USAinUKConsular) June 23, 2025
All three of these types of visas apply to people who wish to study in the United States.
An F status visa is for a student who wishes to study a traditional academic course at a higher education institution, like an English degree.
An M status visa is for students who are enrolling in a vocational course that may be sponsored by a business or another institution. These are for people who wish to gain technical skills like aviation or electrical engineering.
A J status visa is for someone who is participating in a cultural exchange programme, usually organised by their home country's government in partnership with Washington.
These visas are much broader and can involve work roles rather than education, but they must still be sponsored by a government.
The move is part of a wider clampdown on immigration initiated by the Trump administration.
The US has also been revoking visas of people who have entered the country due to their political activity, with social media tracking part of the way they determine who is in and who is out.
Several cases have attracted media attention, with Turkish doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was in the US as part of the prestigious Fulbright scholarship, being detained by plain-clothed immigration officers in broad daylight.
She was arrested and had her visa revoked after she expressed pro-Palestine views in her student newspaper. The Department of Homeland Security claimed she had actively supported Hamas.
The British band UK Subs claimed in March that they had been denied entry to the US because of critical comments some of their members had made about Trump.
US secretary of state Marco Rubio has been boasting about how many students have had their visas revoked after saying in March he had cancelled 300 visas connected to "lunatics" who attended pro-Palestine protests in the US. It is believed more than 1,000 visas have been revoked since then.
The new rules apply to students and people wishing to enter the US on cultural exchange programmes.
In April the US immigration service implemented similar rules for people looking to live permanently in the country.
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services said they "will begin considering aliens' antisemitic activity on social media and the physical harassment of Jewish individuals as grounds for denying immigration benefit requests."
They said under the guidance issued to them by the government, they "will consider social media content that indicates an alien endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity" as a reason for refusing immigration requests.
Scholars in the US have reacted with fury to the tight new rules.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the new policy evokes the ideological vetting of the Cold War, when prominent artists and intellectuals were excluded from the US.
'This policy makes a censor of every consular officer, and it will inevitably chill legitimate political speech both inside and outside the United States," Jaffer said.
The social media rules are also not the only way the Trump administration has been intervening in US academic institutions.
Trump has had a much-publicised spat with Harvard and threatened to cancel large amounts of its funding unless it reined in what he labelled as acceptance of antisemitism at the institution. Harvard has pushed back against the accusations.
Earlier in June, nearly all of the members of the board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright scholarship resigned over what they called Trump's meddling with the programme.
They said the US government had denied awards to several students who had already been accepted into the programme.
The highly selective awards promote US citizens studying abroad in exchange for foreigners studying in the US. Several prominent British politicians have been beneficiaries of the programme, including former prime minister Rishi Sunak.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal Budget Cuts That Disproportionately Affect Blue States
Federal Budget Cuts That Disproportionately Affect Blue States

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal Budget Cuts That Disproportionately Affect Blue States

In May, the White House released its budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, which included $163 billion in cuts to non-defense spending. Consider This: Read More: Critics contend that the cuts disproportionately affect blue states that typically vote Democrat. Keep an eye on the following proposed cuts, which could particularly bludgeon blue states. Also find out how some federal budget cuts could disproportionately affect red states. Infrastructure Funding The budget proposal includes cutting $19.3 billion from the Department of Energy, specifically by slashing funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The states currently collecting the most funds for renewable energy include California, Michigan, New York, Washington, and Georgia. But the changes to infrastructure spending don't end there. The Administration has reshuffled federal funds for flooding and water construction budgets from blue to red states. The two biggest losers included California and Washington, which stand to lose a combined $606 million, according to a report by CNN. Meanwhile, Texas stands to gain an extra $206 million. The budget proposal shifts civil works projects so that blue states receive just 33% of the funds, compared to 64% for red states. Find Out: Medicaid Cuts The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) proposed over $600 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which could rise to $900 billion in the Senate version of the bill. The bill was signed into law on Jul. 4. 'Shifting Medicaid benefits over to the states will put a burden on their budgets that many cannot handle,' explains Tasha Preisner, tax law specialist with DeMar Consulting Group. For example, California tops the list for total Medicaid spending at $124.1 billion, per U.S. News and World Report. Following on their heels is New York, with $97.9 billion. SNAP (Food Stamp) Cuts The OBBBA cuts funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by nearly $300 billion through 2034. The program provides food benefits for one in five children in the U.S., and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that over 2 million children will lose some or all of their food benefits. Aaron Razon, consumer budgeting expert with CouponSnake, expects many blue states to struggle with the cuts. 'Blue states like Massachusetts and California have a high cost of living and many residents who rely on social services,' Razon noted. 'SNAP and other social support cuts would hit them hard, and potentially lead to greater food insecurity, poverty putting further strain on these states' resources and social safety nets.' Science and Health Research Cuts Under the White House budget proposal, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would lose $18 billion, or 41% of its funding. The numbers look even worse for the National Science Foundation (NSF), which stands to lose 57% of its annual funding ($5.2 billion). Guess which states receive the most research funding from the NIH and NSF? California ($6.2 billion), New York ($4.1 billion) and Massachusetts ($4 billion) round out the top three, according to Axios, with Maryland not far behind. Education Cuts Originally, the Trump administration called for dismantling the Department of Education entirely. On Jul. 14, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue laying off DOE workers, leaving the department's fate in limbo, per CNN. The proposed White House budget cuts $12 billion in funding for the DOE. The administration particularly called for cuts to student aid and a new limit on Pell Grants, which provide subsidies to low-income students. The budget eliminates the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), along with all $910 million in funding. The TRIO programs and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) programs also get the axe, and the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program loses $980 million in funding. It proves another blow to blue states like Maryland whose economies largely run on 'eds, meds, and feds.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 10 Unreliable SUVs To Stay Away From Buying 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on Federal Budget Cuts That Disproportionately Affect Blue States

She Exposed Epstein, and Shares MAGA's Anger
She Exposed Epstein, and Shares MAGA's Anger

New York Times

time27 minutes ago

  • New York Times

She Exposed Epstein, and Shares MAGA's Anger

Julie K. Brown thinks Jeffrey Epstein didn't act alone. On this episode of 'Interesting Times,' Ross talks to Brown, the investigative reporter whose work ultimately led to Epstein's re-arrest, about what the government could release that it hasn't and how the story is bigger than Epstein. This conversation was taped before President Trump authorized the Justice Department to seek the release of grand jury testimony in Epstein's case. Below is an edited transcript of an episode of 'Interesting Times.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Ross Douthat: Julie K. Brown, welcome to 'Interesting Times.' Julie K. Brown: Thank you. Douthat: So for the last couple of weeks, ever since the Trump administration decided it was a good idea to tell the world that there was nothing more to say about the Jeffrey Epstein story, which has not been true, I feel like we've had a lot of these metaconversations about the case, conversations about Trump administration politics, MAGA infighting, theories about conspiracy theories. I just keep coming back to the man himself and all of the weird questions that, to me as a journalist and news consumer, still hang over this whole story. So I'm really hoping that together we can walk through the story — the actual story of how Jeffrey Epstein the man became Jeffrey Epstein the mythic villain of the early 21st century. I want to start in the middle for him or maybe near the end for him but at the beginning for you. How did you first get drawn into this story? What prompted you as a journalist to start looking into Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

MAGA's New Target: Trump
MAGA's New Target: Trump

New York Times

time27 minutes ago

  • New York Times

MAGA's New Target: Trump

People often become what they scorn. Donald Trump has become the deep state. He is the keeper of the secrets. He is the one stealing away people's liberties. He is the one weaponizing government and protecting the ruling class. With ICE and DOGE, Trump deputized wolf packs to root around in Americans' personal information. He got Republicans to give Stephen Miller his own army. Trump manipulates government to hurt his perceived enemies. He obscures rather than reveals, pushing aside reporters who ask penetrating questions in favor of Pravda-like partisans who take his side. Trump's supporters thought he would shed light on shady elites protecting their own money and power. Now MAGA is reckoning with the fact that Trump is the shady elite, shielding information about Jeffrey Epstein. 'So the guy who spent his lifetime saying the deep state hides things from you and represses you is now saying 'We've got nothing to hide, trust me,'' said the Trump biographer Tim O'Brien. 'And the people who follow him don't. They think he's just as bad as the people he criticized before he became president.' It's mythic, being devoured by the forces you unleashed. Trump has trafficked in conspiracy theories since the despicable 'birther' one about Barack Obama. Now that whirlpool of dark innuendo has sucked him down. He can no longer control the Epstein conspiracy madness inflamed by his top officials. Trump always reminded me of Lonesome Rhodes, the charismatic, populist entertainer whose 'candid' patter with plain folks garners him enormous power in Elia Kazan's 1957 movie 'A Face in the Crowd.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store