US embassies must vet students for ‘hostile attitudes' but can resume visa appointments, State Department says
WASHINGTON — The US State Department told embassies and consulates they must vet student visa applicants for 'hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles' but said they should resume appointments that were paused in late May.
The new guidance was sent to US diplomatic posts worldwide in a cable seen by CNN Wednesday. It says the vetting will look at student and exchange visa applicants' 'entire online presence.' Applicants will be asked to set their social media profiles to public as part of the new vetting, and the cable notes that 'limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity.'
It comes as the Trump administration has taken significant actions that are likely to deter international students from coming to the US. It has aggressively revoked student visas and specifically targeted Harvard University.
The latest guidance 'requires consular officers to conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting of all FMJ applicants, including online presence, to identify applicants who bear hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles; who advocate for, aid, or support designated terrorists and other threats to U.S. national security; or who perpetrate unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence,' according to the cable.
The guidance, which applies to both new and returning applicants for student and exchange visas, formally known as F, M, and J visas, calls for 'a review of the applicant's entire online presence – not just social media activity – using any appropriate search engines or other online resources,' including 'a check of any databases to which the consular section has access.'
The guidance, first reported by the Free Press, does not give details of what constitutes 'hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.'
The cable says embassies and consulates should implement the new vetting within five business days. They 'should resume scheduling FMJ appointments but should consider the effect of this guidance on workload and schedule accordingly.' It is unclear if embassies and consulates will be able to process as many visas as before given the new vetting standards.
They should prioritize expedited visa appointment requests for 'J-1 physicians (and) F-1 students seeking to study at a U.S. university where international students constitute 15 percent or less of the total student population, according to the U.S. Department of Education.'
The new vetting, the cable states, is being implemented to ensure 'that aliens seeking admission to the United States are screened and vetted to the maximum extent possible and that they will respect the terms of their admission to the United States.'
It notes that such vetting is particularly important for these applicants, noting that 'the FBI has long warned that foreign powers seek access to American higher education institutions to, among other things, steal technical information, exploit U.S. research and development, and spread false information for political or other reasons.'
'During the vetting, you simply are looking for any potentially derogatory information about the applicant,' the cable instructs consular officers, and says they should screenshot relevant online findings.
Even if the 'inconsistencies or potentially derogatory information' does not rise to the level of ineligibility for a visa, 'you must consider whether they undermine the applicant's credibility or suggest that the applicant will not respect the terms of his admission to the United States.'
'For applicants who demonstrate a history of political activism, especially when it is associated with violence or with the views and activities described above, you must consider the likelihood they would continue such activity in the United States and, if so, whether such activity is consistent with the nonimmigrant visa classification they seek,' the cable notes. 'As Secretary Rubio has said, we do not seek to import activists who will disrupt and undermine scholarly activity at US universities.' — CNN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
INTERVIEW-Tehran's Response will be Limited to Escalation with Israel: Dr. Youssef Badr
As the conflict between Iran and Israel entered its tenth day, the US joined to Israel's side, striking three key nuclear facilities in Iran with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles and risking further escalation. The announcement came early on Sunday, as the US President, Donald Trump, declared that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' In response, Iran accused Washington of launching a dangerous war on Tehran, in complicity with Israel, warning of the 'everlasting consequences' of the US strikes and stressing Iran's right to respond. The recent escalation has put the world on edge, as Tehran is weighing its response, including the possibility of closing the Hormuz Strait – a move that could send shockwaves across the global economy. As a result, world powers have called for restraint and de-escalation, urging all sides to return to diplomacy. To gain more insights into the ongoing conflict, Leaders MENA Magazine reached out for Dr. Youssef Badr, a scholar of Middle Eastern affairs. In this interview, Dr. Badr explains the implications of the recent developments on Iran and the wider region. Iran's Nuclear Program Q: Have the US and Israeli strikes succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear program? Officially, Trump promotes that the Iranian nuclear program is obliterated in order to end the war. In fact, however, the US and Israel have not managed to completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. They have just disrupted it. The Iranian nuclear program cannot be obliterated because – unlike projects previously destroyed in Libya or Iraq – it depends on national expertise, whether in terms of scientists, equipment production, or facility construction. Therefore, the US policy, which was swayed by the Israeli narrative, does not appear successful because the Iranian project could go underground. In this case, it will be more dangerous than monitoring it by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Tehran's Options Q: Would Iran escalate or succumb to Trump's threats and choose peaceful settlement? And what options does Tehran have to respond? Tehran will not accept a forced peace, just as it has rejected a forced war. Hence, it will not be easy for the Iranians to accept any settlement that comes at the expense of their status and regional interests. Iran's history bears this out. The Iranians did not end war with Iraq – even though they were not the ones who initiated it – until they secured their demands. Indeed, Iran welcomes an end to the war, but not in the form of a capitulation. Any settlement must yield benefits. The Iranians may not oppose giving up the right to uranium enrichment in exchange of something bigger, such as the return of Iran to the global economy in a competitive way. Tehran's options to respond to the US strikes will remain limited to escalation with the Israelis and disturbing the Americans. The Iranian military strategy does not invite a war with the US and consider it a red line. However, Iran has the ability to endure a long attrition war, although the large geographical distance between Iran and Israel makes it unlikely. Escalation Risks Q: Trump told the Iranians that there are 'many targets left' that the US could strike if 'peace does not come quickly.' In your opinion, what was Trump referring to? It is a warning message to pressure Iran to accept a deal that brings the war to an end. He means draining what is left of Iran's economic, military or nuclear capabilities. Despite Tehran's rejection of ending the war, negotiations have not stopped and Trump sends messages to Iran through mediators. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to Moscow indicates that reaching a solution is possible, particularly that Tehran met with the E3. This also indicates a failure of Trump's policy, which refused multilateral talks in the beginning. Intervention Implications Q: What potential repercussions does the US' military intervention in Iran have on the Middle East and the world? Two nuclear powers attacked an undeclared nuclear state, which has a nuclear program that, despite suspicions, has not been proven to be non-peaceful. This undermines the UN Charter and constitutes a failure of the IAEA's mission and goals. Therefore, it makes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) membership pointless, especially that Trump publicly acknowledged striking nuclear facilities and NASA confirmed the operation. Furthermore, Israel's involvement in the operation will drive the region's countries to seriously consider the danger of Israel's nuclear capabilities, aside from Iran's issue. Similarly, the American move emboldens Russia to replicate the strike against Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Russia and China Q: How do you assess the positions of Russia and China toward the current escalation? Would they intervene in the conflict? Russia has taken advantage of the West's focus on Iran, intensifying its strikes on Ukraine and occupying more territories to gain more bargaining chips with the Western powers. Despite limited support, there will be no direct Russian intervention to Iran's side unless Iran agreed to include military partnership in the strategic agreement between the two countries. But this risks broadening the war. Current conflicts involve a side that engages in a direct confrontation and another side that provides undeclared support, as seen with NATO's unofficial support to Ukraine. Moreover, Moscow does not want a strong Iran as this will deny Russia an avenue to maneuver against Western and European sanctions. At the same time, it does not welcome the fall or fragmentation of Iran. In such case, Russia could reoccupy the northern regions of Iran to protect its interests and influence. As for China, Iran is not like Pakistan, which borders China and received its support against India. Still, Iran is important for China as a gateway to Europe, the Gulf and the Middle East. So, it does not welcome its collapse. Meanwhile, Russia and China are both responsible for the dilapidated state that Iran is experiencing. The two countries have not given Tehran its demanded weapons, defense systems and fighter jets, under the pretext of compliance to international sanctions. Thus, Iran has not received sufficient development since it aligned itself with them. Domestic Impacts of Escalation Q: How is the current conflict impacting Iran domestically? And is the collapse of the regime imminent? There are opponents, even enemies, to the current regime. But at the same time, there are supporters, and Iran's social and organizational structure is contributing to protecting this regime. Just as the opposition propaganda claims that the Iranian regime has begun to erode, the current war may have given it a new lease on life. The regime managed to adapt to the war in Iraq for eight years. Additionally, the 2015 nuclear deal granted Iran an opportunity for change, as a result of its engagement with the West – a development that unsettled Russia and China. However, Trump scrapped the deal and caused a mistrust in the West. This lack of trust in the Western powers will keep pushing Iranians toward alignment with Moscow and Beijing. Short link : Post Views: 10
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Putin Tells Iranian FM There Was no Justification for US Attack
Russian President Vladimir Putin told Iran's foreign minister on Monday there was no justification for the US bombing of his country and that Moscow was trying to help the Iranian people. Putin hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Moscow two days after US President Donald Trump sent US bomber planes to strike Iran's three main nuclear sites. "The absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification," Putin told Araghchi in televised comments. "For our part, we are making efforts to assist the Iranian people," he added. "I am very glad that you are in Moscow today, this will give us the opportunity to discuss all these pressing issues and think together about how we could get out of today's situation." Araghchi told Putin that Iran was conducting legitimate self-defense, and thanked Russia for condemning the US actions. He conveyed best wishes to Putin from Iran's supreme leader and president. "Russia is today on the right side of history and international law," said Araghchi. It was unclear, however, what Russia might do to support Iran, an important ally with which Putin signed a strategic cooperation treaty in January. That agreement did not include a mutual defense clause. Before Saturday's US strikes, Moscow had warned that US military intervention could destabilize the entire region and plunge it into the "abyss". Asked what Russia was ready to do to help Tehran, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "It all depends on what Iran needs". He said the fact that Moscow had offered to mediate in the crisis was itself a form of support. Peskov condemned the US attacks. "An increase in the number of participants in this conflict is happening - or rather, has happened. A new spiral of escalation of tension in the region," Peskov told reporters. "And, of course, we condemn this and express regret in this regard, deep regret. In addition, of course, it remains to be seen what happened to (Iran's) nuclear facilities, whether there is a radiation hazard." Peskov said Trump had not told Putin in detail about the planned strikes in advance. "There was no detailed information. The topic of Iran itself was repeatedly discussed by the presidents during their most recent conversations, certain proposals were voiced by Russia, but there was no direct detailed information about this," he said.
Asharq Al-Awsat
3 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Germany Has No Reason to Doubt Trump's Attendance at NATO Summit
Germany has no reason to assume that US President Donald Trump will not attend the NATO summit in The Hague this week, said a spokesperson for the German government on Monday. "The summit has been in preparation for weeks and months. The NATO members have confirmed their participation. We have no reason to assume otherwise," said the spokesperson when asked about Trump's attendance.
