The Daily Populous Monday March 24th, 2025 morning edition
Authored by independent.co.uk and submitted by T_Shurt

Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox Get our free Inside Washington email Get our free Inside Washington email SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

The Trump administration’s proposal to vet social media profiles of green card applicants already legally in the U.S. has been condemned in initial public feedback as an attack on free speech.

Visa applicants living abroad already have to share their social media handles with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, but the proposal under President Donald Trump would expand the policy to those already legally in the country who are applying for permanent residency or seeking asylum.

USCIS said the vetting of social media accounts is necessary for “the enhanced identity verification, vetting and national security screening.”

The agency also said it was necessary to comply with Trump’s executive order titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.”

“In a review of information collected for admission and benefit decisions, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) identified the need to collect social media identifiers (‘handles’) and associated social media platform names from applicants to enable and help inform identity verification, national security and public safety screening, and vetting, and related inspections,” the agency announced on March 5.

open image in gallery President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed vetting the social media handles of immigrants already legally in the U.S. who are applying for green cards or permanent citizenship. The plan has been condemned as a ‘violation of the First Amendment.’ ( AP )

The agency is collecting feedback from the public on the proposal until May 5, the majority of which are overwhelmingly opposed at the time of writing.

“So the US is heading for authoritarian now,” an anonymous commenter said. “Anything that the current administration doesn’t like means bad. Pure ideology means total destruction. This is a violation to the First Amendment.”

“Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The fear of government scrutiny of online expression will undoubtedly stifle free speech,” another comment read. “This is particularly concerning for individuals from countries with different political climates, who may fear the misinterpretation of their online activity.”

Out of the 143 comments, 29 mentioned a violation of free speech. “This policy undermines the fundamental values that make America a beacon of freedom, including free speech, privacy, and human rights,” another person wrote.

open image in gallery Civil rights groups have raised concerns that the policy proposal would disproportionately impact critics of Israel and the Trump administration’s handling of the conflict. It follows the detention of green card holder Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and protest organizer, labeled ‘pro-Hamas’ by the Trump administration. ( REUTERS )

The proposal follows the detention of green card holder Mahmoud Khalil, labeled “pro-Hamas” by the Trump administration, and the deportation of Brown University doctor, Rasha Alawieh, a H1-B visa holder. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials inspected the kidney medic’s phone and determined she followed the religious teachings of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. They also claimed she “openly admitted” attending his funeral while in Lebanon.

Civil rights groups have raised concerns that the policy proposal would disproportionately impact critics of Israel and the U.S. government’s handling of the conflict.

“This policy would disparately impact Muslim and Arab applicants seeking U.S. citizenship that have voiced support for Palestinian human rights,” Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told The Intercept. “Collecting the social media identifiers of any potential green card applicants or citizens is the means to silencing their lawful speech.”

McCaw added that he also worried that people’s activity would be continuously monitored on social media even if they became U.S. citizens.

open image in gallery Ma Yang, pictured, was deported in February to Laos, a country she has never set foot in. Yang joins a growing number of visa and green card holders in the U.S. who have found themselves swept up in the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown. ( Facebook )

The new proposal comes as the Internal Revenue Service is close to an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to allow officials to use confidential tax data to confirm names and addresses of people they suspect are in the country illegally, according to the Washington Post.

ICE could submit names of suspected illegal immigrants to the IRS so the agency can cross-reference on confidential taxpayer databases, according to insiders. The agreement has “alarmed” career IRS officials who fear it risks abusing a privacy law intended to build criminal cases, “not enforce criminal penalties,” the newspaper reports.

As well as mass deportations, the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has turned its attention to green card and visa holders in recent weeks.

Earlier this month Fabian Schmidt, a 34-year-old German electrical engineer, who has held a green card since 2008, was arrested and detained at Boston Logan International Airport.

And a Milwaukee mother who is a permanent U.S resident and lived here since she was eight-months old was deported to Laos, a country she’d never been to previously, after agreeing to a plea deal over cannabis charges.

MiserableFloor9906 on March 23rd, 2025 at 23:04 UTC »

He will eventually stage a military conflict to justify declaring martial law and suspension of votes.

yunnybun on March 23rd, 2025 at 22:53 UTC »

It starts with immigrants and will expand to everyone soon. Very soon.

Jason_boulder on March 23rd, 2025 at 22:38 UTC »

The Constitution isn't available to everyone anymore.