.avif)
U.S. immigration authorities have announced tighter scrutiny: applications for visas, green cards, and even U.S. citizenship will now be evaluated for signs of “anti-Americanism.”
On August 19, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated its guidance for officers, adding support for anti-American views as a negative factor. In other words, if a foreign applicant has “endorsed, promoted, supported, or espoused” positions considered hostile to the United States, this will be treated as a serious strike against their application for a visa or permanent residency.
USCIS now explicitly states that “anti-American activity will weigh heavily against any decision” on an immigration benefit. Moreover, social media screening—introduced under the Trump administration in June—will be expanded, with officers searching for evidence of “anti-American activity” online. “America’s benefits should not be given to those who hate our country and promote anti-American ideologies,” USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser said, emphasizing that immigration benefits are a privilege, not a right.
The new policy does not provide a clear definition of the term “anti-Americanism.” Instead, it only lists examples such as support for antisemitism, extremism, terrorist organizations, and radical ideologies. As guidance, USCIS refers back to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which excluded from naturalization members of communist or totalitarian parties, anarchists advocating for the overthrow of the government, and supporters of world communist revolution. In practice, “anti-American” could therefore mean views directed against the U.S. constitutional order (as during the Cold War) or openly siding with America’s enemies.
Critics argue this definition is dangerously broad and vague. The Trump administration, for example, had previously used the label “anti-American” for a wide range of opponents — from historians and museums addressing U.S. slavery to pro-Palestinian demonstrators protesting Israeli actions. Immigration forums and social media users are already raising concerns: could any criticism of U.S. foreign policy trigger suspicion? Some ask whether opposing a U.S. strike on Iran or calling for a ceasefire in Gaza might be deemed “anti-American.”
“This is McCarthyism returning to immigration law,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council, noting that the concept of anti-Americanism has never appeared in immigration statutes before. The worry is that such a vague standard leaves enormous discretion to immigration officers, who may treat almost any expression of disloyalty to U.S. policy as grounds for rejection.
Sociology professor Jane Lilly López warns that applicants will now need to demonstrate even more carefully their “loyalty” in order to satisfy these blurred requirements. Legal experts also highlight the free speech problem: while the First Amendment does not formally protect non-citizens outside the U.S., this kind of “ideological screening” of immigrants looks like a troubling attempt to suppress dissent. “Being critical of government is not a crime — it is, in fact, a virtue in a democratic society,” argues New York attorney Cyrus Mehta. “Disagreement and debate help a country correct its mistakes and grow.”
The new “anti-Americanism” checks fit into a broader trend of tightening immigration rules in recent months. Just days ago, the State Department confirmed that more than 6,000 student visas in categories F/M/J had been revoked in 2025. Officials said roughly 4,000 were due to legal violations (including drunk driving, assault, and theft), around 200–300 on the basis of “support for terrorism” (under INA §212(a)(3)(B)), and another 1,700–1,800 for overstays or other visa violations.
Moreover, media reports indicate that foreign students and even some green card holders have been warned they could be deported for publicly supporting Palestinians or criticizing Israel—actions officials sometimes equate with sympathy for terrorism.
The scale is notable: in the 2023/24 academic year, over 1.12 million international students studied in the U.S., and about 400,000 F-1 visas were issued in fiscal 2024. Revoking 6,000 visas is not a collapse of the system, but it is far from negligible.
Procedurally, the squeeze began in May, when appointments for F/M/J visas were paused, before resuming in June with expanded vetting. Applicants are now required to make their social media accounts public, and consular officers are instructed to look for “hostility toward U.S. citizens, culture, institutions, or founding principles,” as well as possible links to terrorist groups. This has increased both the subjectivity of decisions and processing times.
According to NAFSA projections, new international student enrollment could decline by 30–40% in fall 2025, leading to a 15% overall drop in foreign student numbers and a loss of up to $7 billion for local economies.
In parallel, USCIS has also expanded its definition of “good moral character” for naturalization, requiring officers to weigh not only the absence of crimes but also broader aspects of behavior—such as tax compliance, education, and employment history.
These measures significantly heighten the role of immigration officers’ subjective judgment. The process is becoming less transparent and more unpredictable: much depends on how “loyal” a candidate appears to an individual official. For applicants, this means exercising heightened caution—critical statements and online activity can now cost them the right to a U.S. visa or citizenship.
