The following can be attributed to Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney and legislative advisor at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University: 

“The State Department is excluding tech researchers from the United States because of their constitutionally protected work, and this newly disclosed memo only underscores the unbounded scope and unconstitutionality of the policy. That the Trump administration claims its censorial policy is intended to combat censorship is the height of doublespeak.”

In March, the Knight Institute and Protect Democracy filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) challenging the constitutionality of the policy. The complaint argues that the policy violates the First Amendment and chills independent research and reporting about social media and other internet platforms.

Read more about the case here.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org 

The lawsuit alleges that the policy violates the First Amendment by penalizing particular viewpoints and deterring independent research about social media and other internet platforms. It also raises claims under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act.

CITR’s motion asks the court to halt enforcement of the policy while the case proceeds, explaining that its members are already self-censoring by curtailing research, avoiding speaking publicly about their work, and limiting their participation in advocacy efforts for fear of being targeted by the government for their public-interest work.

CITR’s members include research institutions, academics, and journalists who study digital platforms and their societal impacts. Their work seeks to inform public debate so that consumers, advertisers, platforms, and policymakers can make informed decisions about emerging technologies.

The following can be attributed to Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute:

“The Trump administration claims that its new exclusion and deportation policy counters censorship, but it is itself censorship. In targeting independent researchers for studying and reporting on social media and other internet platforms, the policy punishes work that the First Amendment protects—and work that the public needs to understand how the platforms are shaping our society.”

The following can be attributed to Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index, a CITR member organization:

“Because of the policy, I’ve been prevented from traveling to the United States. I had to cancel meetings with colleagues and funders and postpone work that depends on in-person collaboration. That kind of disruption slows research, breaks down partnerships, and limits the exchange of ideas across borders.”

The following can be attributed to Brandi Geurkink, executive director of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research:

“Because of the government’s censorship policy, researchers are pulling back on studying critical topics and avoiding speaking publicly about their work, because they fear  they could be  detained or deported because of what they say. If this assault on research continues, people will be left without independent information about the impacts of AI and other digital platforms on our societies—at precisely the moment when we need it most.”

Read the preliminary injunction motion here.

Read more about the case here.

Lawyers on the case include Carrie DeCell, Raya Koreh, Kiran Wattamwar, Anna Diakun, Katie Fallow, Alex Abdo, and Jameel Jaffer, for the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Naomi Gilens, Nicole Schneidman, Scott Shuchart, and Deana El-Mallawany, for Protect Democracy.

For more informtaion, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org. 

“The Trump administration is using the threat of detention and deportation to suppress speech it disfavors,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney and legislative advisor at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “By targeting researchers and advocates for their work studying and reporting on social media platforms and online harms, the policy chills protected speech and distorts public debate about issues of profound public importance.”

Since his first term, President Trump and his allies have characterized the content moderation decisions of privately owned social media platforms as a form of “censorship” reflecting anti-conservative bias. In May 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a visa restriction policy aimed at foreign officials and other individuals who are allegedly “complicit in censoring Americans.” In early December 2025, news outlets reported that the State Department had instructed U.S. consular officers to scrutinize visa applicants—particularly H-1B applicants—for evidence of their work in fields including misinformation, disinformation, fact-checking, content moderation, trust and safety, and compliance, and to pursue findings of visa ineligibility if they deemed applicants “complicit” in censorship. Secretary Rubio subsequently applied the policy to one former EU regulator and four independent researchers and advocates—including the leaders of two CITR-member organizations—and indicated his willingness to expand its application. 

CITR’s members include research organizations, academics, journalists, and advocates who study digital platforms and their societal impacts. Their work seeks to identify online harms, improve user safety, and inform public debate.

“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,” said Brandi Geurkink, executive director of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research. “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.”

The policy’s chilling effects spread beyond the community of independent researchers that CITR represents. According to news reports about the December 2025 State Department cable, which has not been made public, the policy reaches fact-checkers and online safety professionals whose work includes combating child exploitation, terrorism, and preventing fraud, human trafficking, and other forms of malicious behavior. This work involves research, analysis, and editorial judgment—work that is itself protected expressive activity. 

“This policy appears to be so broad and vague that it casts a shadow over a vast range of protected activity,” said Naomi Gilens, counsel at Protect Democracy. “The professionals working to keep the internet safe are left in fear, wondering whether doing their jobs could cost them their visas or trigger detention or deportation. Exploiting immigration policy to go after this kind of work doesn’t just hurt those individuals—it undermines the very systems that make the internet more trustworthy for all of us.”

Today’s complaint further alleges that the policy punishes CITR’s noncitizen members and others based on their perceived viewpoints; interferes with the rights of CITR and its U.S. citizen members to hear from and associate with noncitizen colleagues; is not sufficiently tailored to serve any legitimate governmental interest; and is impermissibly vague. The complaint also raises claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Read the complaint here.

Read more about the lawsuit, Coalition for Independent Technology Research v. Rubio, here.

Lawyers on the case include Carrie DeCell, Raya Koreh, Kiran Wattamwar, Anna Diakun, Katie Fallow, Alex Abdo, and Jameel Jaffer, for the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Naomi Gilens, Nicole Schneidman, Scott Shuchart, and Deana El-Mallawany, for Protect Democracy. 

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org