US resumes student visa but anti-American social media posts risk rejection

Good news for international students: The United States has resumed processing student visa applications. But there's a new condition—applicants must now set all their social media accounts to 'public' so consular officers can examine their online activity.
In a notice made public on June 18, 2025, the US State Department said it has lifted the freeze on student and exchange visitor visa appointments but warned that applicants who refuse to unlock their accounts may be turned away. Officers have been directed to scrutinise posts for anything that could be seen as hostile towards the US, its government, institutions or values.
'To facilitate this vetting,' the department said, 'applicants will be asked to adjust the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to public. The enhanced social media vetting will ensure we are properly screening every single person attempting to visit our country.'
Applicants flagged for being private online
The State Department's internal guidance now suggests that a refusal to share public accounts could signal an attempt to evade scrutiny. Officers have also been instructed to watch for activity that appears anti-American or disruptive to campus life.
The updated policy follows weeks of halted interview scheduling across embassies after Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered a pause pending tighter vetting rules.
'If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements… we're not going to give you a visa,' Rubio said in March, after a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University was arrested and later released on bail.
Indian applicants may face tough choices
Experts say students from India and other countries will find little room to negotiate these new conditions. Any attempt to hide or edit past posts now could backfire.
'Visa applicants likely cannot do much to avoid refusal,' Daniel Pierce, partner at Fragomen's Washington, DC office told Business Standard. 'Setting accounts to private may cause the government to assume the applicant is hiding something. Deleting or editing posts at this stage could also raise concerns that the applicant previously shared problematic content.'
According to Pierce, even applicants who are not on social media might be viewed with suspicion. 'A lack of social media presence might lead the government to assume the person is attempting to hide their views from scrutiny,' he said.
Few legal options if a visa is denied
For those rejected due to social media activity, legal remedies are limited. US courts generally do not interfere in visa decisions made by consular officers abroad.
'Challenging individual visa denials in federal court is extremely difficult,' said Pierce. 'There may be ways to challenge the State Department at the policy level—for example, if its guidance to consular offices is flawed or if it exceeds constitutional free speech principles. But individuals who receive denials will likely have no direct legal remedy and will need to reapply and hope for a different outcome.'
Sofia Cope, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, had earlier criticised the direction the US was taking. 'Penalising a would-be foreign student or visitor for not being active on social media or keeping their online presence shielded from the general public is an outrageous overreach by the administration,' she said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

29 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

31 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?'

Economic Times

31 minutes ago

• Economic Times

As US weighs Iran strike, Pakistan tries to recast itself as anti-terror ally — and India is watching closely

New Delhi: India is watching closely as Pakistan tries to reinvent itself as a victim of terrorism and is seeking to find a place as a key actor against extremism and a possible ally to the US in the conflict with several accounts, the meeting between Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir and US President Donald Trump lasted almost three hours, extending beyond the one hour allocated, and included key US administration advisors for West growing conflict in the region - with the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel overshadowing other issues and increasingly pointing towards a US intervention - has placed Pakistan in an advantageous position that it will try to leverage, people tracking the situation the core of Pakistani moves, sources feel, is an attempt to rebrand itself from a fountainhead of terrorism to a victim that is seeking Western help to counter outfits that present threats to the West. This is an old plot that Pakistan has successfully played against the West in the past before the discovery of Osama Bin Laden at Abbottabad and the subsequent distancing of the US administration and pulling back of military aid. A renewed attempt is being made, with the Iran crisis coming at a particularly fortunate time for Pakistan as the US looks for allies who can pressurise Tehran and provide support in case American forces decide to enter the battlefield. Sources said Pakistan has managed to find some success in getting to Washington DC by exploiting the gap in the Pentagon that exists due to the structuring of its military commands across the world. The US Central Command (CENTCOM), which deals with Pakistan, is at the centre of action right now due to the troubles in West Asia. The Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) which deals with India and China was earlier more central to decision-making and planning in Washington DC. Its views of Pakistan as a close partner of China, increasingly dependent on Beijing for military equipment, training and intelligence, were a counter to the CENTCOM's motives of using Pakistani support for anti-terror operations in its area of said Pakistan is likely to use the situation to play the US against China, though in the long term it will remain dependent on Beijing for weapons, training and funding. The worry is, that in the short run, Pakistan may bargain to get access to US equipment and technology in the garb of fighting terror. It has been seen in the past, including when India attacked terror camps in Balakot in 2019, that equipment provided to Pakistan to fight terrorism were used against at stake for India will be the partnership with the US that has been growing in the military sphere and includes plans to co-develop cutting edge weapon systems. India has been increasing its dependence on the US for critical defence equipment, including engines for indigenous LCAs, maritime surveillance equipment and satellite difference is that while India is seeking technology and equipment from the US to counter an increasingly aggressive China, Pakistan may try to seek the same against India, in the garb of fighting terrorism.