GET THE APP
Thursday, April 2, 2026

Category: 1A
March 31, 2026
1A
SCOTUS

Supreme Court Overturns Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy for minors.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Supreme Court, Christian therapist Kaley Chiles, and Colorado state officials.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued on Tuesday and impacts Colorado and at least 20 other states with similar laws.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” – Justice Neil Gorsuch

🎯IMPACT: The ruling effectively overturns the Colorado ban and similar laws in over 20 states, asserting free speech protections for therapists.

IN FULL

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Colorado‘s ban on conversion therapy for minors. In a surprising eight-to-one ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, the high court found in favor of Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist who challenged the state’s ban. Attorneys for Chiles argued the Colorado law effectively infringed on her right to help young patients who sought to align their lives with their Christian faith.

“In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint. Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, continuing, “It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”

“However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments,” the majority concluded, ordering the circuit court decision upholding the Colorado law reversed and remanded (effectively overturning the ban).

The law, adopted in 2019, prohibits “any practice or treatment” aimed at changing a minor’s “gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” While the law has never been enforced, it includes fines of up to $5,000 per violation and potential suspension or revocation of a counselor’s license. Notably, it exempts religious ministry practices.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, delivering a summary of her opposition from the bench. Notably, the ruling impacts over 20 other states with similar laws seeking to ban conversion therapy.

Image by Joe Ravi.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
March 10, 2026
1A
TECH

Musk’s X Censors GOP Congressman for Anti-Islam Tweet.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Elon Musk’s platform X (formerly Twitter) censored a post by Congressman Andy Ogles (R-TN).

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. Congressman Andy Ogles, Elon Musk, and the European Union (EU).

📍WHEN & WHERE: March 10, 2026, on X.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The EU has SILENCED my X post that called pluralism a lie and kindly stated that Muslims don’t belong in America.” – Andy Ogles

🎯IMPACT: The incident highlights ongoing issues with free speech on social media platforms, and the influence of foreign censorship laws on American citizens, including elected officials.

IN FULL

Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has censored a post by U.S. Congressman Andy Ogles (R-TN) in Europe on behalf of the European Union (EU), on grounds that it constitutes “Illegal or Harmful Speech.” Ogles had written, “Muslims don’t belong in America. Pluralism is a lie.”

“The EU has SILENCED my X post that called pluralism a lie and kindly stated that Muslims don’t belong in America,” Ogles posted on Tuesday. “Muslims run their government, and they are silencing free speech. We must not cower to these barbarians. Free speech must win. Share this everywhere,” he added, attaching a message from X.

“We have received a complaint regarding your account, @RepOgles, for the following content,” the message from X to Ogles read, linking to his offending tweet. “In accordance with applicable law, X is now permanently withholding the reported content in the EU, specifically for the following legal grounds: Illegal or Harmful Speech,” the message added.

Despite Musk claiming he would uphold free speech after purchasing X, users are still regularly and often arbitrarily sanctioned for their posts on the platform, and it does not hesitate to enforce foreign censorship regimes overseas, going so far as to ban Turkish opposition figures during protests last year.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
March 6, 2026
Christopher Tomlinson
1A
Bonkers Britain

Stats: British Arrests for Speech Crimes Dwarf Those of Former USSR.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Statistics reveal that Britain is currently prosecuting more people for speech crimes than the former Soviet Union did.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Commentator Peter Nimitz, analyst Alex Kokcharov, and the British government.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The statistics were posted on X (formerly Twitter) on March 4.

💬KEY QUOTE: “USSR had centralized repression apparati (party officials & secret police) while UK utilizes a combination of secret police, decentralized apparati aligned by judiciary (HR departments), & ethnic auxiliaries in certain territorial police forces,” Peter Nimitz wrote.

🎯IMPACT: The statistics reveal the massive scale of speech suppression in Britain.

IN FULL

Statistics circulated online suggest that Britain prosecutes far more speech-related cases each year than the former Soviet Union (USSR) did during one of its most repressive periods. According to figures shared by commentator Peter Nimitz, Soviet authorities arrested 3,234 people between 1962 and 1985 under Articles 70 and 190-1 of the criminal code, which targeted “anti-Soviet agitation” and “disinformation.” Meanwhile, Britain recorded 2,341 prosecutions for online speech offenses in 2022 alone, resulting in 1,816 convictions, under legislation such as the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

“USSR had centralized repression apparati (party officials & secret police) while UK utilizes a combination of secret police, decentralized apparati aligned by judiciary (HR departments), & ethnic auxiliaries in certain territorial police forces (infamously Leicestershire),” Nimitz said.

The comparison was prompted by a viral video shared by British counter-terror police as part of its sinister “WHAT YOU SHARE LEAVES A TRACE” campaign, showing a white teenager fearing for his future after sharing a link because he “thought it was funny,” only for the authorities to decide it was “terrorist content” and seize his devices.

The comparison between Britain and the USSR has been seized upon by critics who argue that Britain’s expanding policing of online speech has erased the country’s traditional civil liberties. High-profile recent cases include a mother who was jailed over an anti-immigration social media post shortly after a mass stabbing targeting young girls, perpetrated by the son of two African asylum seekers.

In another case, a British man received a prison sentence after chanting “Who the f*** is Allah?” during unrest over the stabbings, with the judge citing hostility toward Islam as a factor in sentencing. A former professional soccer player was also convicted over abusive messages directed at BBC presenters on social media, with the judge rebuking him in court for wearing a scarf displaying the British flag.

Some argue the comparison of Britain to the USSR is unfair, as the USSR had no social media to police, and the penalties for speech crimes were often harsher than in Britain, including years in labor camps or internal exile. However, Britain’s modern censorship has drawn much international criticism, with the Trump administration in the U.S. concerned that it is impacting American citizens and companies.

Last year, the U.S. State Department released a human rights report critical of British policies, highlighting the censorious Online Safety Act in particular.

Jack Montgomery contributed to this report.

Image by Garry Knight.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 25, 2026
1A

Trump Admin Launches GLOBAL Free Speech Platform to Counter Foreign Censorship.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The State Department is launching a new app, Freedom.gov, to provide global access to content censored in locations like Europe, China, and Iran.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The U.S. State Department, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, and the European Union (EU).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The app will roll out globally over the next several weeks, available on iOS and Android platforms.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Freedom.gov is the latest in a long line of efforts by the State Department to protect and promote fundamental freedoms, both online and offline.” – U.S. State Department

🎯IMPACT: The app underscores America’s commitment to free speech amid rising global censorship, amid trade and legal issues with the EU over its restrictive online speech laws.

IN FULL

The Trump administration is launching a new tool to combat global censorship. Administered by the U.S. Department of State, Freedom.gov is an app designed to provide users worldwide with access to content censored in locations like China and Iran, as well as the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU). According to the agency, the platform will be available on iOS and Android devices in the coming weeks.

“Freedom.gov is the latest in a long line of efforts by the State Department to protect and promote fundamental freedoms, both online and offline,” the department says, adding, “The project will be global in its scope, but distinctly American in its mission: commemorating our commitment to free expression as we approach our 250th birthday.”

Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), praised the move, comparing it to historical efforts like Radio Free Europe during the Cold War. “If Europe’s bureaucrats don’t want you to see it, that tells you everything,” Tedesco stated. “[But] even if your government fears freedom—ours doesn’t.”

Critics of European speech laws, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU and the Online Safety Act in Britain, argue that these regulations are increasingly draconian, targeting so-called “hate speech” or “misinformation.” The National Pulse’s Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam reported last February that Vice President J.D. Vance took a room full of European “elites” to task at the Munich Security Forum in Germany, slamming leaders who fail to abide by the wishes of their electorates and condemning the censorship and persecution of conservatives, Christians, and others.

Concerns have also been raised about the impact of EU laws on American speech rights. A House report titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat” warned that European regulations are pressuring U.S. tech companies to alter global content moderation rules, potentially silencing Americans. President Trump criticized the EU for imposing heavy fines on American tech companies for not censoring enough, noting in 2024 that such penalties exceeded the tax revenue generated by European tech firms.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 18, 2026
William Upton
1A
Immigration

Citizen Journo Says Billie Eilish Stunt Led to Lengthy Interrogation When Entering U.S.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Australian citizen journalist and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) critic Drew Pavlou is claiming that American music industry star Billie Eilish is responsible for his being denied entry to the United States.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Drew Pavlou, U.S. Customs officials, and music star Billie Eilish.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The denial of entry allegedly occurred last week, February 2026.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I wouldn’t be banned from the United States but I would not be allowed to use an ESTA visa waiver again.” — Drew Pavlou

🎯IMPACT: Pavlou says he was told he was denied entry to the U.S. due to his social media posts about Eilish

IN FULL

Australian citizen journalist and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) critic Drew Pavlou is claiming that American music industry star Billie Eilish is responsible for his being denied entry to the United States. Pavlou, in an essay published Wednesday, states he planned to travel to the U.S. and test Eilish’s “theory of land ownership, which she stated at the Grammys to great applause, and take over her LA mansion with the help of Native Americans.”

“But, sadly, I was turned back at the border last weekend—my sacred and inalienable right to freedom of movement curtailed by border guards who were, I suspect, briefed about my arrival by Eilish’s team,” the Australian national claims. Pavlou says after his arrival at the airport in Los Angeles he was pulled out the customs inspection line and “taken aside to a screening room and made to wait without access to my phone for four hours. Then I was brought to a holding area, a liminal zone that they referred to as the ‘Upstairs’ unit.”

After several hours and a phone call to the Australian consulate, Pavlou says he was “called in for an interrogation at about 4 AM by Officer Martinez,” who “started his interrogation by asking me who Billie Eilish was.” The Australian anti-CCP activist goes on to allege that Martinez—presumably a U.S. customs official—stated he had reviewed “open-source information” detailing Pavlou’s planned stunt to “trespass” on Eilish’s property.

According to Pavlou, he downplayed his intended social media stunt, but the officer then shifted his line of inquiry—pressing him on his anti-CCP activism and commentary on China. “He wanted to know if I had ever attempted to blow up a Chinese government building. Whether I had previously attempted to assassinate Chinese government officials,” Pavlou stated.

Ultimately, Pavlou says he was told he was denied entry to the U.S. due to his social media posts about Eilish, alleging he was informed, “I wouldn’t be banned from the United States but I would not be allowed to use an ESTA visa waiver again.”

Image by crommelincklars.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 17, 2026
1A
Bonkers Britain

Trump Looks Set to Grant Refuge to Man Prosecuted for Blasphemy Against Islam in UK.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A refugee in Britain, Hamit Coskun, is facing a de facto blasphemy case after burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy in London. The Trump administration is considering granting him refugee status in the U.S. if he loses his case.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Hamit Coskun, the Trump administration, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and Moussa Kadri, a passerby involved in the incident.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The incident occurred outside the Turkish embassy in London. The CPS is challenging the overturned conviction in court on Tuesday.

💬KEY QUOTE: “For me, as the victim of Islamic terrorism, I cannot remain silent. I may be forced to flee the UK and move to the USA, where President Trump has stood for free speech and against Islamic extremism.” – Hamit Coskun

🎯IMPACT: The case highlights the differences in free speech laws between the United States and the United Kingdom and may escalate tensions between the two nations.

IN FULL

The Trump administration is reportedly considering offering refugee status to Hamit Coskun, a Turkish refugee in Britain who burned a Quran outside the Turkish embassy in London, if he loses an ongoing legal battle. Coskun was initially convicted after setting fire to the Islamic holy book while shouting, “Islam is religion of terrorism” and “f*ck Islam.”

He was first charged with harassing the “religious institution of Islam,” with prosecutors amending to allegations after backlash to disorderly behavior in public but preserving the essential form of the case. Coskun’s conviction was overturned following support from advocacy groups including the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union, which argued the prosecution amounted to enforcing a blasphemy law. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is now challenging that decision, reopening the case.

During the incident, a bystander, Moussa Kadri, attacked Coskun with a knife and later kicked him after he fell. Kadri only received a suspended sentence.

Coskun has expressed fears for his safety and concerns about freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. “For me, as the victim of Islamic terrorism, I cannot remain silent. I may be forced to flee the UK and move to the USA, where President Trump has stood for free speech and against Islamic extremism,” he said. He added, “If I have to do so, then, to me, the UK will have effectively fallen to Islamism and the speech codes that it wishes to impose on the non-Muslim world.”

According to reports, officials under President Donald J. Trump have cited Coskun’s case as part of broader concerns about free speech protections in Britain.

Notably, the Trump administration recently granted refugee status to dozens of white South Africans, citing anti-white racism and attacks. In a separate case, German right-wing activist Naomi Seibt sought asylum in the United States, receiving support from Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who said she would advocate on Seibt’s behalf.

Image by Frankie Fouganthin.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
January 2, 2026
1A
Media

‘Hate Crime’ – Dem Mayor Tries to Criminalize Citizen Journalism.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Mayor Katie Wilson (D) condemned independent journalists investigating allegations of fraud in Somali-run daycares, labeling them as “extremist influencers” and accusing them of harassment.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, independent journalists, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, and Mike Davis.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The controversy centers on Somali daycare providers in Seattle, Washington, and allegations of fraud that have been exposed in recent investigations.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Asking questions/citizen journalism are NOT HATE CRIMES in America — they are protected speech, and if Seattle tries to chill that speech, [DOJ Civil Rights Division] will step in to protect it and set them straight!” – Harmeet Dhillon

🎯IMPACT: The situation has sparked national attention, with federal officials warning against threats to First Amendment rights and independent journalists continuing to uncover questionable practices.

IN FULL

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson (D) has condemned independent journalists investigating allegations of fraud in Somali-run daycares, describing them as “extremist influencers” engaged in harassment. “I stand with the Somali childcare providers who have experienced targeted harassment, and condemn the surveillance campaign promoted by extremist influencers,” Wilson—a self-described socialist—wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) late Thursday.

The far-left socialist mayor encouraged individuals who believe they are victims of hate crimes to contact Washington’s Hate Crimes and Bias Incident Hotline. She further asserted, “In Seattle, we believe in solidarity, and our city will not tolerate anyone who is trying to intimidate, harass, or film Somali childcare providers. Such behavior is unacceptable and puts children and families at risk.”

Her comments follow investigations by independent journalists Nick Shirley, as well as Cam Higby and Jonathan Choe, the latter of whom reported on local Seattle Somali daycare facilities receiving government subsidies despite discrepancies suggesting potential fraudulent activity. One case involved a daycare listed as receiving over $210,000 in taxpayer funds, but when questioned, the occupant of what appears to actually be a residential property denied operating any childcare business.

Additional reports highlighted daycares with no children present and threats to journalists attempting to verify the legality of their operations.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, responded to Wilson’s accusations, warning, “Asking questions/citizen journalism are NOT HATE CRIMES in America — they are protected speech, and if Seattle tries to chill that speech, [DOJ Civil Rights Division] will step in to protect it and set them straight!” Dhillon also criticized Washington Attorney General Nick Brown (D) for similar comments, emphasizing that state officials cannot infringe on First Amendment rights.

Image by Jonathan Thorne. 

Join Pulse+ to comment below and receive exclusive email analyses.

show less
show more
December 22, 2025
1A
News

Rubio Warns Against European Censorship Encroaching on Americans’ Free Speech.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed concerns over the erosion of free speech in Europe during a year-end press conference.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Trump administration, the European Union (EU), the British government, and organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Rubio spoke at his year-end press conference in December in Washington, D.C.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Are we going to live in a world where some American puts up a social media post and then gets to some airport somewhere and is arrested?” – Marco Rubio

🎯IMPACT: Rubio emphasized the need for a robust response to free speech concerns in Europe, warning of implications for Americans and global platforms.

IN FULL

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned that declining free speech protections in Europe could have direct consequences for Americans, saying the issue is a top priority for the U.S. State Department. Speaking at a press conference, Rubio questioned, “Are we going to live in a world where some American puts up a social media post and then gets to some airport somewhere and is arrested?”

Concerns over speech restrictions in Europe have increasingly drawn scrutiny from the Trump administration. In July, the State Department posted on X (formerly Twitter) that “in Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won’t fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom.”

Reports from Britain suggest that approximately 30 people are arrested each day over online messages considered offensive. Human rights organizations, including Alliance Defending Freedom and Amnesty International, have raised concerns about speech regulations in other European countries, including France and Germany, where arrests related to social media posts have risen in recent years.

Rubio specifically criticized the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping regulatory framework that allows the European Commission—the bloc’s unelected executive—to fine technology companies for failing to address so-called disinformation and “illegal content”. He pointed to ongoing enforcement actions against X, noting, “As you recently saw, you know, X is facing this massive multi-million dollar fine that they’re going to have to pay, I guess, because they want to continue to operate.”

Dr. Adina Portaru, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International, said the DSA’s reach extends far beyond large technology firms. “The DSA can impact anyone, can impact content creators and influencers and preachers and political dissidents and any kind of content online can be regulated by the DSA through its architecture,” she said, warning that the law lacks sufficient safeguards for lawful freedom of expression.

The Trump administration has framed European enforcement actions as not only a threat to domestic speech within Europe, but also to Americans whose content is accessible overseas. Administration officials have argued that penalties imposed on U.S.-based platforms amount to an attack on American free speech rights and have reportedly discussed potential responses, including travel bans on European officials involved in censorship enforcement.

Rubio emphasized the importance of addressing the issue with allied nations, saying shared democratic values, including freedom of speech, must remain central to transatlantic cooperation.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
December 9, 2025
1A
SCOTUS

Supreme Court Considers Striking Down Campaign Finance Limits in Republican-Led Case.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of federal limits on coordinated political spending by parties in the case NRSC v. FEC.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Vice President J.D. Vance, former Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and court-appointed lawyer Roman Martinez.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Arguments took place on Tuesday at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The parties have been weakened overall, and this case… starts to restore the strength of parties,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

🎯IMPACT: A decision could reshape campaign finance laws and is expected by mid-2026.

IN FULL

The Supreme Court on Tuesday examined the legality of federal caps on coordinated political spending by parties, a case that could further alter campaign finance restrictions. The dispute, NRSC v. FEC, challenges limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates financing for federal campaigns.

For the current election cycle, coordinated spending limits range from $61,800 to $123,000 for House races and up to $3.7 million for Senate races. The plaintiffs, including Vice President J.D. Vance, former Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), argue that these limits violate the First Amendment. A federal appeals court previously upheld the caps, relying on a 2001 Supreme Court ruling.

During oral arguments, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh seemed inclined to strike down the limits. Kavanaugh expressed concerns about the weakening of political parties compared to outside groups like super PACs, stating, “The parties have been weakened overall, and this case… starts to restore the strength of parties.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned lawyers sparingly, while Justice Neil Gorsuch remained silent. Liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, warned that removing the caps could lead to corruption. Sotomayor criticized the court’s past rulings on campaign finance, saying, “Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse.”

Roman Martinez, the court-appointed lawyer defending the restrictions, argued that overturning the caps could unravel decades of campaign finance law. He cautioned, “You’re going to be deluged with petitions, the dominoes are going to fall, and you’re going to have to reconstruct campaign finance law from the ground up.” The court is expected to issue its decision by mid-2026, ahead of next year’s congressional midterm elections.

Image by Billy Wilson.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
December 5, 2025
1A
Immigration

Trump Admin Mandates Visa Checks for Foreign Tech Workers Tied to Censorship Efforts.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. State Department has issued new guidelines directing consular officers to screen foreign tech workers for records of censorship or silencing lawful expression before granting H-1B visas.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. consular officers, foreign tech workers, and the State Department.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The guidance was distributed to U.S. embassies on December 2, according to Reuters.

💬KEY QUOTE: “If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible.” — State Department memo

🎯IMPACT: The new rules could significantly affect foreign tech workers, particularly in sectors like social media and financial services, as well as companies relying on H-1B visas.

IN FULL

The U.S. Department of State circulated a cable this week directing U.S. consular officials to screen foreign H-1B applicants in the tech industry to determine if they’ve participated in efforts to suppress free speech. According to the memo, consular officers are to reject visa applications for individuals found to have ties to online content or political censorship.

Issued on December 2, the order appears to be part of the Trump administration’s sweeping reforms to U.S. immigration policy. H-1B visa eligibility requirements have not previously taken into consideration an applicant’s involvement in censorship and speech suppression operations.

Consular officials are instructed to review the resumes, social media profiles, and other documents submitted by visa applicants for evidence that they or their family members have worked for organizations specializing in combating so-called disinformation, online safety compliance, content moderation, or fact-checking. “If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible,” the State Department order states.

The U.S. tech industry draws a significant part of its workforce from the H-1B program, which allows American companies to hire supposedly high-skilled labor from foreign countries. However, the visa program is often abused by firms to import cheap labor, particularly from India, which often undercuts the wages of American workers.

The National Pulse reported in late May that Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the department would adopt a new policy to block U.S. entry for foreign officials and their families involved in censoring Americans or interfering with U.S. tech companies.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more