US student visas: Applicants' online activity to be reviewed
The US State Department said on Wednesday it is restarting the suspended process for foreigners applying for student visas but all applicants will now be required to unlock their social media accounts for government review.
The department said consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles.
In a notice made public Wednesday, the department said it had rescinded its May suspension of student visa processing but said new applicants who refuse to set their social media accounts to 'public' and allow them to be reviewed may be rejected.
It said a refusal to do so could be a sign they are trying to evade the requirement or hide their online activity.
The Trump administration last month temporarily halted the scheduling of new visa interviews for foreign students hoping to study in the US while preparing to expand the screening of their activity on social media, officials said.
Students around the world have been waiting anxiously for US consulates to reopen appointments for visa interviews, as the window left to book their travel and make housing arrangements narrows ahead of the start of the school year. On Wednesday afternoon, a 27-year-old PhD. a student in Toronto was able to secure an appointment for a visa interview next week. The student, a Chinese national, hopes to travel to the US for a research internship that would start in late July.
'I'm really relieved,' said the student, who spoke on condition of being identified only by his surname, Chen, because he was concerned about being targeted. 'I've been refreshing the website a couple of times every day.' Students from China, India, Mexico and the Philippines have posted on social media sites that they have been monitoring visa booking websites and closely watching press briefings of the State Department to get any indication of when appointment scheduling might resume.
In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritise students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15 per cent of the student body, a US official familiar with the matter said.
Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 US universities, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools. But that criteria also includes 26 public universities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dealing with China: Lessons from Galwan clash, five years on
Just over five years ago, the Galwan clash between India and China saw 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers killed. This year is also the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The bilateral relationship has been full of surprises and turmoil. It appears that India and China, two of the largest countries, economies and militaries, who share a disputed and unresolved border, do not understand each other. The violent clash of June 2020 was the first such incident since 1975. Peace was maintained on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) for almost four decades with the help of confidence-building mechanisms (CBMs). These were achieved after long and painstaking discussions, primarily to avoid any violence on the LAC. However, in the words of Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, 'So there was a clash, and a number of troops died on either side, and that has since, in a sense, overshadowed the relationship. So until we can restore peace and tranquillity on the border and ensure the agreements signed up to are adhered to, it's obviously difficult to carry on with the rest of the relationship'. But can India trust China to adhere to any agreements now? The long freeze between the neighbours after the 1962 war was revisited in 1988 with the 'normalisation' of ties and efforts were put in place to avoid a similar challenge. During Rajiv Gandhi's visit that year to Beijing, Deng Xiaoping said, 'We have both made mistakes and we can learn from each other. Why can't we share our experiences, our successes and failures? There is much we can achieve together. We can achieve nothing by being antagonists'. There was positive momentum after the visit and both sides engaged in an increased economic relationship (bilateral trade stands at around $118 billion). There was a lot of talk about cooperation. However, what has continued to be the driving factor is mistrust. Since 1988, there have been multiple stand-offs at the border, the most intense being in Doklam in 2017 — both armies stood eye to eye for 73 intense days. What complicates the situation further is that both countries are nuclear powerhouses and have advanced militaries. And both are vying to grow their global influence. The Galwan clash underscored the fragility of the relationship. It took almost four-and-a-half years and multiple rounds of bilateral talks at various levels to achieve a breakthrough. In October 2024, it was announced that India and China have agreed on patrolling rights in the Ladakh region. Foreign Vikram Misri said: 'Agreement has been arrived at on patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China border areas, leading to disengagement and a resolution of the issues that had arisen in these areas in 2020 and we will be taking the next steps on this.' However, it appears that disengagement will be a long process. China appears keen to discuss restarting the people-to-people and economic engagement. After Galwan, India banned several Chinese apps and stopped major Chinese investments and direct flights. After the thaw, China has been keen to restart direct flights. It has issued around 85,000 visas and has resumed the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra for Indians. On the other hand, India has continued to reiterate that no significant developments can be achieved if the border issue is unresolved. Galwan is a major recent reminder of what the border is capable of doing. It can push the countries as well as the region into uncertainty. India has continued to focus on building capabilities in the border region and developing infrastructure that can help in the proper management and movement of troops and equipment. The most prominent of these is the all-weather Sela Tunnel in Arunachal Pradesh. Even after years of positive statements and shows of bonhomie, the neighbours appear to be just talking at each other. The talks of people-to-people interaction by China and the fact that India continues to reiterate the centrality of the border for a genuine stable relationship to exist shows the gap in perception and understanding. This gap needs to be bridged sooner rather than later. For Beijing, when it comes to its relations with New Delhi, it is economic dynamics that matter. New Delhi, however, should not forget the lessons from Galwan and ignore the fragility of diplomatic measures, which can clearly be ignored and trampled by China. The writer is associate professor, OP Jindal Global University
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?
As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan
Srinath Sridharan Washington under Trump opting to engage with Pakistan's military chief despite Rawalpindi's record on terror undermines the values the US champions. Transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and peace. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. Gift this article 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. In a country where 'I love New York" or 'I love Boston" merchandise is part of pop-cultural retail tradition, it is perhaps the first time that a sitting American president has publicly professed such open affection—not for a US city but for a foreign nation, and one long entangled with terror networks and given to military overreach. Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promptly corrected the record the same day, clarifying (yet another time) that it was Islamabad that had sought de-escalation unilaterally. But Trump's insistence on claiming credit for a crisis he neither resolved nor influenced reveals a deeper, far more disturbing pattern: America's habitual romanticism of tactical deals with regimes entangled in terrorism while ignoring the long-term consequences for regional stability. This is not just bad optics. It is bad policy. The US, once considered the torchbearer of democratic values, seems increasingly willing to bypass elected governments in favour of military establishments and shadow power centres. Nowhere is this more evident than in its dealings with Pakistan. A nation that has harboured extremist groups, undermined civilian authority and used terror as statecraft continues to enjoy relevance in Washington's foreign policy playbook. The White House praises the arrest of a single militant as evidence of cooperation, even as Pakistan's terror infrastructure remains intact—undisturbed, deliberate, and institutional. Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism It is hard to ignore the irony. America claims to lead the free world, yet chooses to transact with regimes that represent the antithesis of the values it espouses. The consequence is moral abdication. This dynamic plays out repeatedly: from the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan to the safe haven for Osama bin Laden near a military cantonment in Abbottabad in Pakistan; from cross-border attacks in Mumbai, Pathankot, Pulwama and Uri to the continued radicalization in Pakistan's heartlands. The fingerprints are clear. So is the complicity. Yet, the US persists in treating Islamabad as a necessary partner—sometimes to broker influence in Kabul, other times to play the middleman in Kashmir, and often just to retain access and leverage in the region. It would be naïve to believe that the US-Pakistan relationship incentivizes reform. In truth, it legitimizes impunity. The Pakistani military, emboldened by its transactional value to Washington, continues to weaken democratic institutions at home and fund destabilizing proxies abroad. Every such engagement strengthens the perception that terrorism can be bartered for aid and extremism for arms. The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The US claims to rely on India as a democratic counterweight to China. It deepens defense ties, invests in the Quad and speaks of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Yet, it simultaneously chooses to ignore the very forces that threaten that vision by rewarding a regime that profits from regional unrest. This inconsistency is not lost on New Delhi. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. From selective partnerships to a repeated pattern of 'doing more" without consequence, Washington is an expert in the language of strategic necessity while turning a blind eye to long-term costs. But tactical flexibility cannot replace principled engagement. It does not produce allies; it breeds dependencies. Pakistan, meanwhile, has mastered the art of offering just enough cooperation to keep US interest alive while maintaining its core strategy of plausible deniability and proxy warfare. Credibility, not convenience, must now become the real currency of global order. Especially in a world grappling with great-power tensions—from Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait to West Asia—the US must ask itself a fundamental question: Can it afford to keep trading principles for short-term proximity? The answer becomes clearer when we examine Washington's recent diplomatic posturing over multiple global flashpoints—Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan. In each, the pattern is strikingly similar: choreographed pronouncements of peacemaking, fleeting moments of engagement and self-congratulatory claims of having 'brokered peace." For India, the implications are significant. A natural partner to the US, India must now calibrate its engagement with clarity and conviction. If the foundation of partnership is shared democratic values, then New Delhi must insist on consistency, not just in defence or economics but in principle. A rules-based international order cannot be built on selective amnesia or political expedience. It requires holding rule-breakers accountable. And it demands that peace not be sacrificed at the altar of tactical diplomacy. Affection in diplomacy is not measured by slogans, but by the values one chooses to embrace—and the silences one is willing to overlook. India, with its civilizational depth and global aspirations, must engage the world on its own terms. Our diplomacy must be grounded in self-respect, not shaped by shifting Washington moods. Because, at the end of the day, transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and real peace. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In
