An Edison Middle School student takes a photo of a solar eclipse through the viewfinder of a telescope on Monday, April 8, 2024, at Edison Middle School in Green Bay, Wis. The eclipse, which reached 84.7 percent totality in Green Bay, is the last total solar eclipse forecasted in the contiguous United States until 2044. Tork Mason/USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin
Washington D.C. – A new proposal from U.S. immigration officials is raising alarms among civil rights advocates as the government considers expanding social media screening for those applying for green cards, U.S. citizenship, and other immigration benefits.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice on March 5 requesting public comment on the proposal, which would require applicants to disclose their social media handles as part of the vetting process. This move aligns with an executive order first introduced under former President Donald Trump, aimed at strengthening national security screenings.
Critics argue that the expansion signals a growing reliance on social media surveillance, even for individuals who are already living in the U.S. legally. While immigration officials have monitored social media activity for over a decade, the new policy would extend these checks to those seeking permanent residency and citizenship—not just those applying to enter the country.
Rachel Levinson-Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice warns that this policy shift could have far-reaching consequences. “Where I could see this impacting people is those who entered the country before social media handle collection became a standard visa requirement,” she said. “Now they’re being asked to provide it, even though they’ve already been extensively vetted.”
Levinson-Waldman also expressed concerns about how social media data might be used to make high-stakes immigration decisions. “Social media is an unreliable stew of information—some of it is accurate, some of it isn’t, and much of it is hard to interpret,” she said.
Leon Rodriguez, former director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), echoed those concerns, noting that artificial intelligence tools used for social media screening have significant limitations. “AI might be a useful first filter, but it’s nowhere near capable of replacing trained national security officers in making judgment calls,” he said.
Beyond security concerns, civil rights organizations worry that the policy could chill free speech and lead to discrimination. In a 2019 policy shift, the U.S. State Department began collecting social media handles from nearly all foreign visa applicants—about 15 million people annually. Critics argued that the move disproportionately targeted Muslim applicants and other marginalized groups.
The First Amendment protects free speech for all individuals in the U.S., including non-citizens. However, immigration authorities have broad discretion to deny visas and revoke status, a power that civil rights advocates argue could be misused to target political dissent.
“This is part of a larger pattern of the U.S. government using social media to make high-stakes determinations about people’s lives,” Levinson-Waldman said.
The proposal is open for public comment until May 5. If implemented, it could affect an estimated 3.6 million people applying for immigration benefits annually.
USCIS has defended the move, stating that expanded screening would “strengthen fraud detection, prevent identity theft, and support the enforcement of rigorous screening measures to the fullest extent possible.”
Still, critics remain skeptical. “There’s a fine line between national security and overreach,” Rodriguez warned. “We need to make sure we’re not crossing it.”
