The Trump administration finds itself embroiled in a legal battle over its stance on restricting entry to certain advocates of social media moderation. The administration seeks to bar these individuals from entering the United States, sparking a heated debate over free speech and international relations.
In a recent session, US District Court Judge James Boasberg presided over a case brought forth by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials from the Trump administration. The lawsuit challenges a policy that sanctions visas for foreign officials advocating for American tech platforms to enforce global content moderation standards. CITR is pushing for a preliminary injunction to halt this policy, which they argue stifles essential research into online content moderation and misinformation. The policy has already been invoked by the State Department to sanction five individuals involved in addressing online disinformation, including a former European official prominent in enforcing digital regulations.
Announced in May of the previous year, the controversial policy led to sanctions in December, with the State Department claiming that its targets were promoting censorship by foreign states. Notable figures affected include Thierry Breton, a former EU official, as well as executives from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Global Disinformation Index (GDI), both associated with CITR. Among those sanctioned is Imran Ahmed, CEO of CCDH, who is a permanent US resident according to CITR.
CITR contends that the policy undermines the freedom of scholars to express and publish their findings without fear. Researchers have reportedly hesitated to discuss their work publicly or delayed publishing to avoid jeopardizing their visa status, particularly before international travel. “One of the worst parts about a chilling effect is all of the research that won’t happen,” remarked CITR’s executive director, Brandi Geurkink, following the court proceedings.
The government defends its position by interpreting the policy narrowly, suggesting it only targets individuals affiliated with foreign governments, thus posing no threat to independent researchers. However, Carrie DeCell, a senior attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, representing CITR, disputes this claim, arguing that there is no evidence of individuals like Ahmed coordinating with foreign governments. Judge Boasberg questioned the validity of this narrow interpretation, suggesting that if the policy is misapplied, it undermines the government’s argument. Despite Rubio’s memo suggesting Ahmed was deportable under this policy, government attorney Zack Lindsey maintained that Ahmed wasn’t actually targeted under the policy, arguing that this does not detract from the State Department’s overarching authority.
The government’s defense largely relies on reading the policy in a very narrow manner. Attorney Zack Lindsey argued it targets only the conduct of people who work for foreign governments, so independent researchers have nothing to fear. Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute arguing on behalf of CITR, asserted there’s no evidence figures like Ahmed were coordinating with a foreign government. If the policy is being applied outside its supposed criteria, Boasberg asked Lindsey, “doesn’t that explode your argument?” Lindsey insisted Ahmed wasn’t actually targeted under the policy, despite Rubio referencing it in a memo where he advised that Ahmed was deportable — and argued the details of any particular target don’t undermine the State Department’s larger authority.
Overall, Lindsey left exactly what constitutes working with a foreign government ambiguous — an ambiguity that, DeCell said, “seems to be part of the point.” The State Department is seeking to preserve an expansive right to restrict visas, regardless of the specifics of a given policy.
The injunction could hinge partially on technical questions like whether the CITR has grounds to sue. But Boasberg questioned another of the government’s major claims: that a court can only decide if a policy is constitutional in the context of a legal challenge for an individual visa holder who’s facing deportation. “No matter how preposterous a policy that was promulgated, there could be no constitutional challenge?” he asked as a hypothetical. He’ll soon decide whether the policy must be stopped to prevent irreparable harm. “I will do my best to get it all figured out,” Boasberg said.
