On Monday morning, Secretary of State Marco Rubio faced a lawsuit accusing him of implementing a “brazen” censorship policy targeting noncitizen researchers, academics, and journalists. This policy is allegedly masked as an effort to curb those “complicit in censoring Americans.”

The lawsuit was initiated by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), a San Francisco-based organization. They filed the case in a federal court in California, with legal representation from the Protect Democracy Project and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Notably, the Knight First Amendment Institute is also engaged in a separate legal battle with President Donald Trump over access to the report from former special counsel Jack Smith regarding the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation.

CITR is seeking a judicial declaration that Rubio’s alleged “Censorship Policy”—which includes threats of “visa denial, visa revocation, detention, and deportation” for those supporting content moderation—violates the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The organization demands the cessation of these threats against its members, who fear repercussions for their continued research and advocacy on major internet platforms.

The complaint traces the origins of this conflict back nearly a year, culminating in December 2025. At that time, Rubio announced his intention to “exclude or deport five specific individuals under the Policy,” including leaders from two organizations within CITR.

The lawsuit claims that the “Censorship Policy” has effectively stifled the expression and association of targeted individuals, particularly noncitizen members of CITR. CITR, a non-profit entity, comprises research institutions, academics, journalists, and advocates examining the societal impacts of technology, including issues of misinformation, disinformation, content moderation, and trust and safety. The lawsuit asserts that CITR’s members have already been targeted under Rubio’s policy.

In a statement released in late May, Rubio emphasized that free speech is a defining characteristic of America, labeling it a “beacon” globally. He declared that foreign officials responsible for censoring protected expression in the United States would face consequences for their actions.

“It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil,” he said, before turning to content moderation. “It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States. We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech.”

“This visa restriction policy is pursuant to Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the Secretary of State to render inadmissible any alien whose entry into the United States ‘would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,’” Rubio said, adding that “Certain family members may also be covered by these restrictions.”

He also fired off posts on X vowing visa consequences for “foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans” online.

Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country. Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over.

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) May 28, 2025

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” said the secretary of state. “Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life – a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority,” Rubio said. “Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country. Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over.”

According to the lawsuit, however, Rubio’s “unconstitutionally vague” and “even incoherent” claimed prerogative to shrink the First Amendment while “using coercive threats” ignores relevant McCarthyism history.

“The legislative history of the foreign policy provisions confirms Congress’s intent to restrict the Executive’s authority to exclude noncitizens from the country based on their speech, beliefs, or associations,” the filing said. “As explained in a Senate Committee report, Congress adopted the foreign policy provisions to replace McCarthy Era provisions of the INA and, in doing so, ‘to take away the executive branch’s authority to deny visas to foreigners solely because of the foreigner’s political beliefs or because of his anticipated speech in the United States.”

CITR executive director Brandi Geurkink said in a statement of her own that researchers matter, and so does the lawsuit.

“Researchers who help everyday people understand the impacts of Big Tech are scared that they and their families will be targeted for detention and deportation under this policy,” Geurkink said. “At a time when AI is rapidly changing our lives and economy and people are already worried about their freedom and safety online, we need independent researchers more than ever. This policy is meant to censor researchers into silence and keep the public in the dark, and that’s exactly what it’s doing.”