The Trump administration is cracking down hard on non-immigrant visas with a staggering 80,000 revocations since January 2025.
Fox News reported that this year’s sweeping action, which includes over 8,000 student visas, dwarfs last year’s numbers by more than double, targeting criminal behavior and perceived threats to American values.
Right out of the gate, on his first day back in the White House in January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to ensure visa holders don’t harbor hostility toward American citizens, culture, or national security.
This isn’t just rhetoric—it’s policy with teeth, as the State Department has pulled visas for serious offenses like assault, theft, and driving under the influence, which together account for nearly half of the revocations.
Breaking it down, over 16,000 visas were yanked for DUIs, more than 12,000 for assault, and upwards of 8,000 for theft, showing a clear focus on public safety.
But it’s not just about crime stats; the administration is also keeping an eye on broader threats, including overstays and even support for terrorism, defined expansively to include criticism of U.S. foreign policy allies.
Since returning to power, the Trump team has been scouring online posts to sniff out foreigners who might warrant visa cancellation—a digital dragnet for anti-American sentiment.
Over the summer of 2025, the State Department doubled down, announcing it would require visa applicants to open up their social media accounts for government scrutiny.
During interviews, officials are probing applicants to weed out anyone who might pose a risk to national security, a move that’s as bold as it is divisive.
The State Department took to X with a triumphant tone, declaring, "Promises made, promises kept." They added that President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio "will always put the safety and interests of the American people first."
Well, that’s a nice soundbite, but let’s unpack it—prioritizing American safety is laudable, yet defining terrorism support as mere criticism of policy risks casting too wide a net, potentially silencing legitimate discourse.
Still, for many fed up with lax oversight, this signals a refreshing return to accountability, especially when student visas—over 8,000 of them—are on the chopping block for failing to meet standards.
Make no mistake, the intent here is clear: protect the homeland from genuine threats, whether it’s a drunk driver or a potential security risk hiding behind a visa. Yet, as conservatives, we must ask if this broad brush—equating online opinions with terror support—might chill free expression, even if we disagree with the views expressed.