US tightens monitoring of social media accounts of foreign students applying for visa
President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday ordered the resumption of student visa appointments but will significantly tighten its social media vetting in a bid to identify any applicants who may be hostile towards the United States, according to an internal State Department cable reviewed by Reuters.
US consular officers are now required to conduct a "comprehensive and thorough vetting" of all student and exchange visitor applicants to identify those who "bear hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles," said the cable, which was dated June 18 and sent to US missions on Wednesday.
On May 27, the Trump administration ordered its missions abroad to stop scheduling new appointments for student and exchange visitor visa applicants, saying the State Department was set to expand social media vetting of foreign students.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said updated guidance would be released once a review was completed.
The June 18 dated cable, which was sent by Rubio and sent to all US diplomatic missions, directed officers to look for "applicants who demonstrate a history of political activism, especially when it is associated with violence or with the views and activities described above, you must consider the likelihood they would continue such activity in the United States."
The cable, which was first reported by Free Press, also authorised the consular officers to ask the applicants to make all of their social media accounts public.
"Remind the applicant that limited access to....online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity," the cable said.
The move follows the administration's enhanced vetting measures last month for visa applicants looking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose, in what a separate State Department cable said would serve as a pilot program for wider expanded screening.
Online presence
The new vetting process should include a review of the applicant's entire online presence and not just social media activity, the cable said, urging the officers to use any "appropriate search engines or other online resources".
During the vetting, the directive asks officers to look for any potentially derogatory information about the applicant.
"For example, during an online presence search, you might discover on social media that an applicant endorsed Hamas or its activities," the cable says, adding that may be a reason for ineligibility.
Rubio, Trump's top diplomat and national security adviser, has said he has revoked the visas of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, including students, because they got involved in activities that he said went against US foreign policy priorities.
Those activities include support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza.
A Tufts University student from Turkey was held for over six weeks in an immigration detention centre in Louisiana after co-writing an opinion piece criticising her school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. She was released from custody after a federal judge granted her bail.
Trump's critics have said the administration's actions are an attack on free speech rights under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Fewer appointments?
While the new directive allows posts to resume scheduling for student and exchange visa applicants, it is warning the officers that there may have to be fewer appointments due to the demands of more extensive vetting.
"Posts should consider overall scheduling volume and the resource demands of appropriate vetting; posts might need to schedule fewer FMJ cases than they did previously," the cable said, referring to the relevant visa types.
The directive has also asked posts to prioritise among expedited visa appointments of foreign-born physicians participating in a medical programme through exchange visas, as well as student applicants looking to study in a US university where international students constitute less than 15 per cent of the total.
At Harvard, the oldest and wealthiest US university on which the administration has launched a multifront attack by freezing its billions of dollars of grants and other funding, foreign students last year made up about 27 per cent of the total student population.
The cable is asking the overseas posts to implement these vetting procedures within five business days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Pentagon chief defends US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as ‘resounding success'
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday said US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities had been a 'resounding success', angrily pushing back against the 'fake news' media for questioning how effective the attacks were. President Donald Trump and his administration are furious after a preliminary assessment of the strikes suggested they may not have fully destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities. The report was leaked to the press. 'President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history. And it was a resounding success, resulting in a ceasefire agreement, and the end of the 12-day war,' Mr Hegseth told Pentagon reporters. He then lambasted the Pentagon press corps for reporting on the initial assessment. 'It's like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump,' he said. 'It's almost personal when we see the way in which leaks are used to try to disparage the outcome or muddy the waters about the impact of what happened.' Gen Dan Caine, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was also at the press conference. He said experts had spent 15 years developing the technology to attack Fordow and other Iranian nuclear sites. He told reporters the GBU-57, the 30,000-pound (13.6-tonne) munition dropped from B-2 stealth bombers on Saturday, had been designed to burrow into the Fordow site and explode once deep underground. Experts 'accomplished hundreds of test shots and dropped many full-scale weapons against extremely realistic targets for a single purpose, kill this target at the time and place of our nation's choosing,' he said. The bombs don't leave a large crater as they explode far below the surface, he said, noting that the weapons had flown down three ventilation shafts and all exploded as planned. Gen Caine also described how US troops at Al Udeid Air Base had defended against an Iranian missile attack on Sunday. He said roughly 44 American service members responsible for defending the entire base were present as rounds of Patriot missiles were launched. Gen Caine said Qatar joined in the successful defence of what he called the largest single Patriot engagement in US military history.
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
How Iran shattered the myth of Israeli strength
The 12-day war on Iran was unprecedented, unique in scope and seismic in implications. For the first time, Israel launched a war - not merely a limited operation - against a country it shares no border with, separated by at least 1,500 kilometres. More crucially, it marked the first time in history that the United States openly fought alongside Israel in a direct military assault. A moment long in the making - shaped by decades of alliance-building, joint training, coordination and collusion - finally arrived. And while it was staged as a grand display of overwhelming strength and strategic unity, what it revealed was far more damning: a portrait of fragility, dependency, and a power structure cracking under the weight of its own myth. A line was crossed. Israel has long relied on the scaffolding of western support: political, military and financial. Its capacity to act with force has always been tethered to the might of its sponsors. But apart from its collusion with Britain and France in the 1956 war against Egypt, it acted directly alone on the ground in its wars. What has changed is not the fact of dependency, but its exposure. No longer cloaked in euphemism or hidden behind closed-door diplomacy, that dependency now stands naked: unmistakable, undeniable. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters In 1948, when former US President Harry Truman recognised the newly declared Zionist state within minutes of its announcement, he did so amid fierce divisions within his own administration, with some advisers warning of the long‑term consequences of establishing a settler‑colonial state in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world. In the ensuing years, Britain and France remained Israel's primary patrons, until the 1956 tripartite invasion of Egypt ended in a humiliating retreat under pressure from former US President Dwight Eisenhower, who threatened to sink the British economy unless they withdrew. The real pivot came under Lyndon Johnson, the first US president to provide Israel with offensive weaponry, over the objections of the State Department. From that point on, the alliance deepened. Washington was no longer just a sponsor; it became the indispensable shield and sword of the Israeli project. Illusion of autonomy In 1967, US arms enabled Israel to seize the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and the Golan Heights in just six days. In 1973, when Egypt and Syria attempted to reclaim their occupied lands, former US President Richard Nixon ordered a massive resupply airlift, telling Henry Kissinger: 'Send everything that will fly.' And the weapons have never stopped flying. Still, despite this support, Washington drew a red line at direct military involvement. Even when Israeli and American interests were perfectly aligned, Israel was kept at arm's length. In 1991, as Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles struck Tel Aviv, former US President George H W Bush forbade Israeli retaliation, knowing it would fracture the Arab coalition that Washington had built. Again in 2003, when the US and UK invaded Iraq, Israel - despite the benefits it stood to gain - was sidelined. The war dismantled a regional rival, but American officials preserved the illusion of autonomy. Every time they pronounce the region subdued, it answers back: louder, wiser, stronger. Israel cannot win without the US. And the US can no longer win with Israel Until now. For the first time, the US has not just backed, funded or armed an Israeli war - it has fought it. Shoulder to shoulder, in the open, in full view of the world. What changed was not Israel's strength, but its deterioration. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has waged a genocidal campaign against Gaza, bombed Lebanon and Syria, and pushed the region towards a full-scale conflagration. It tried to cast itself as an invincible regional hegemon. But the illusion of self-reliance collapsed the moment Iran hit back. Israel could not do the job alone. It turned immediately to Washington, and Washington obeyed. We now know that the US and Israeli militaries had conducted joint exercises a year earlier to simulate an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. That rehearsal became reality. US President Donald Trump lavished praise on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Pentagon and the Israeli army struck in unison. No more fig leaves, no more choreography. Just the naked fact: Israel cannot fight its wars alone. Entrenching resistance In becoming totally dependent on the US under Trump, Israel has lost its place in the driving seat. Unlike 1967, when Israel claimed a solo victory and was hailed across the West, this time even the ceasefire was dictated by Washington. When Israel tried to escalate after the ceasefire began, it was stopped cold: its pilots ordered to turn back, its leadership publicly humiliated as the US president swore at them on camera. Dependency, it turns out, comes at the cost of sovereignty. What was framed as strength became a confession. Not triumph, but exposure. And the irony is stark. The more they strike, the more they entrench the very resistance they seek to extinguish. For centuries, this region has been invaded, divided and bombed - from Crusader knights to British generals, from French mandates to American missiles. Every time the West has declared victory, the region has risen again. Because resistance here is not a slogan. It is not a tactic. It is a civilisational inheritance. From anti-colonial revolts to liberation movements, from leftists to Islamists, from Sunnis to Shias, from Christians to Muslims - this region has forged a defiant culture. Its weapons have ranged from children's stones to long-range missiles threatening Tel Aviv. And still, it resists. Gaza, starving, surrounded, burning, continues to fight. Under siege and genocide, it still refuses to break. Hours after the Iran-Israel ceasefire was declared, seven Israeli soldiers were killed in Gaza - a reminder to the world that the enclave's resistance continues in full force. Compare that to the collapse of three Arab armies in 1967 after six days, or the Palestine Liberation Organisation's evacuation from Beirut in 1982 after two months. What Gaza represents today is not just defiance; it is transformation. It is the evolution of resistance in the age of total war. Arab regimes might bow, normalise and suppress. But their people do not. Look into any Arab or Muslim street, and you will find the pulse still beating, the flame still burning. Every dream of submission has ended in smoke. Old consensus dying Now, cracks are forming at the heart of the empire. The old consensus is dying. Among Democrats, support for Palestinians has overtaken support for Israel. Among younger Republicans, the same shift is beginning. Even Trump's base is splitting. The victory of progressive Zohran Mamdani over staunch pro-Israel figure Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral primary was an earthquake - a warning sign. The backlash was so sharp, Trump himself rushed to end the war, telling Netanyahu the US would no longer be involved Trump's former strategist, Steve Bannon, put it bluntly, saying Netanyahu 'created this sense of urgency that doesn't exist … and did the salesman's upsell, we have to have regime change'. Addressing the Israeli prime minister directly, he said: 'Who are you to lecture the American people? The American people are not going to tolerate it.' Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene echoed these sentiments: 'There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first … This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' The backlash was so sharp, Trump himself rushed to end the war, telling Netanyahu the US would no longer be involved. This, despite a leaked intelligence report revealing that Iran's nuclear programme had only been set back by a few months. Within days, Trump pivoted from demanding Iran's 'unconditional surrender' to publicly thanking it. Conservative commentator Candace Owens, once firmly aligned with Trump, posted: 'First thing I've seen in awhile that has united his base is Trump talking trash about Israel on camera. It's just a fact that everyone worldwide has Israel-victim fatigue.' Israel-US attack on Iran: The price of Netanyahu's forever wars Read More » The myth of unconditional support is dead. What once united the empire now divides it. The recent operations might look like a peak in US-Israeli coordination. In reality, this marks a fracture. Trump's speech, proclaiming victory and partnership with Netanyahu, belongs in the archive of imperial delusion that has long haunted this region. It echoes French General Henri Gouraud standing over Saladin's grave in 1920: 'We are back, O Saladin.' It recalls British General Edmund Allenby in 1917 declaring the Crusades complete. It mirrors former US President George W Bush's smug 'Mission Accomplished.' Every time they pronounce the region subdued, it answers back: louder, wiser, stronger. Israel cannot win without the US. And the US can no longer win with Israel. This is not a triumph. It's an echo of every empire that mistook firepower for permanence. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Khaleej Times
2 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
No love for the dollar as markets fret about Fed independence
A battered dollar is taking another beating as investors, unnerved by fresh signs of an erosion in US central bank independence, waste no time in pushing the greenback back to its lowest levels in over three years. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell "terrible" in his latest attack on the Fed chief and said he has three or four people in mind as contenders for the top Fed job. The dollar was back at multi-year lows against a basket of other major currencies on Thursday, erasing a brief respite provided by safe-haven flows related to Middle East tensions earlier in the week. Down 10% so far this year and set for its worst year since 2003, the dollar was expected to weaken further as renewed concern about Fed independence comes amid increased expectations for rate cuts and a looming July 9 deadline for trade agreements. "We are short the dollar in this environment, where there is an erosion of institutions," said Kaspar Hense, a senior portfolio manager at RBC BlueBay Asset Management. Being 'short' a currency means holding bets it will fall in value. "This is not currently 100% in the price, and it would still move markets if someone like Hassett or Bessent would get the job in order to cut rates, ignoring fundamental risk," Hense said. The leading contenders for next Fed chief reportedly include former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, National Economic Council head Kevin Hassett, current Fed Governor Christopher Waller, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. "I think the market is pricing in President Trump appointing someone who at least at first sight appears more sympathetic to his cause," said Societe Generale chief FX strategist Kit Juckes. Comments earlier this week meanwhile by Fed policymaker Michelle Bowman, recently tapped by Trump as the Fed's top bank overseer, that the time to cut rates is getting nearer weakened the dollar as rate-cut expectations rose. Traders now price in a nearly 25% chance of the Fed cutting rates in July compared to 12.5% last week. Trump's confrontations with longstanding allies over trade and security, and his attacks on the Fed, have revived questions in Germany around its holdings of central bank gold, some of which is stored at the New York Fed. European Central Bank supervisors are asking some of the region's lenders to assess their need for dollars in times of stress, gaming out scenarios in which they cannot rely on tapping the Fed under the Trump administration, Reuters reported last month. Nick Rees, head of macro research at Monex Europe, said the big short-term risk for markets was that the Fed criticism continued. "I'll be perfectly honest, I'm currently rewriting them in the light of what we are seeing right now," he said, referring to short-term currency forecasts. "We had thought the dollar should stabilise around current levels because the macro data is about to turn really quite positive." ING said the euro's break above $1.17, put $1.20 firmly in sight although sentiment towards the greenback would have to deteriorate further to get there. Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, noted that the dollar had not benefited as much as expected in the past two weeks from heightened Middle East tensions, a sign the dollar's safe-haven role had been hurt. In recent years, the currency has risen when oil rallies, but it gained just 0.7% last week. The dollar, the world's No.1 reserve currency, has come under fire this year from erratic US policy making that has exacerbated economic uncertainty and put the notion of US exceptionalism into doubt. Concern about Fed independence adds to the damage, investors said. Respect for independent institutions such as central banks has long been viewed as a key attraction of major economies, helping anchor economic stability and provide policy certainty. A survey of 75 central bank reserve managers published earlier this week by think-tank OMFIF showed that 70% of those surveyed said the US political environment discouraged them from investing in the dollar -- more than twice the share a year ago. "Talk about having the next Fed chair announced within the next couple of months, that would be fairly disruptive," said Shah. "It brings up the whole concern about the credibility and reliability of US institutions again, which is typically something that people don't like."
