New US Visa Rule Requires Applicants To Set Social Media Accounts to ‘Public'
On Monday, the United States Embassy in Japan announced via X that applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas must make their social media accounts 'public.' According to the US Department of State (DOS), those who keep their social media accounts private may be
deemed
as trying to hide their activities. Officers have
reportedly been
told to reject visa applications in
cases
where the applicant has expressed 'hostile attitudes' toward the US, advocated
for
or supported 'designated foreign terrorists and other threats to US national security,' or supported an
tis
emitism.
'Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their personal social media accounts to 'public' to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States,' read t
he post
. The F, M and J visas are all student visas. F-1 is for academic studies, M-1 is for vocational or non-academic studies and J-1 is for exchange visitor programs.
List of Contents:
Reaction to the US Embassy Post
Social Media Checks Becoming Stricter in the US
Related Posts
Reaction to the US Embassy Post
The post by the United States Embassy in Japan has garnered more than 2 million views. Some raised concerns about their visas potentially being rejected because their social media pages are not pro-US enough. Others vented their frustration at the kind of country the US is becoming, suggesting freedom of speech is being stifled. 'What happens if I criticize Trump? Isn't that against freedom of speech? Well, thanks to your president, your country has become quite an unappealing place, so I doubt anyone would want to go there anyway,'
posted
one user.
Not everyone was against the ruling, though, with some posting their support. 'I'm amazed at people quoting
1984
,'
wrote
one X user. 'This isn't about the US targeting their own citizens. It's about verifying the identities of newcomers to protect their people. Checking whether newcomers are Trojan horses for homeland defense. To prevent large-scale civil unrest or infiltration of key national institutions, this kind of vetting is essential, isn't it? It's a normal procedure.'
Social Media Checks Becoming Stricter in the US
The US has been checking the social media accounts of visa applicants and immigrants since at least 2019. However, in the past few months, these checks have allegedly become a lot stricter. Speaking to
USA Today
in April, Susanne Heubel, senior counsel at the New York-based immigration law firm Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, said that up until January 2025, the searches had been 'almost negligible.' She added, 'I travel a lot, I have clients who travel a lot, of all sorts of nationalities and visa statuses, and nobody has ever complained about these searches until now.'
Related Posts
US Visa Applicants From Japan Now Require Disclosing 5 Years of Social Media History
Japanese PhD Student Has Visa Revoked in the US Due to Alleged Criminal History
Renewing a Japanese Visa, More Fun Every Year
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
3 hours ago
Higher Education and Economic Inequality in Japan: Why Boosting Financial Aid Won't Work
Hoping to combat growing socioeconomic inequality, the Japanese government is working to lower financial hurdles to secondary and tertiary education. But what is the efficacy of such measures in the context of labor immobility and major companies' rigidly hierarchical recruiting systems? Neoliberalism and Education Since government policy fell under the global sway of neoliberalism, economic inequality has emerged as an increasingly worrying issue worldwide. Japan today is no exception, notwithstanding its erstwhile image as a uniformly middle-class society. Emphasizing the importance of competition in a free market, personal choice, and individual responsibility, neoliberals have rejected the welfare state's pursuit of 'equality of outcomes' through the redistribution of resources and shifted the focus to 'equal opportunity,' particularly in the area of education. The idea is to root out entrenched social inequities by promoting fair competition in the arena of education. In terms of government policy, this has generally meant expanding the supply of educational opportunities and providing students with scholarships and other forms of financial assistance. Yet empirical studies conducted in various countries have found that the quantitative expansion of secondary and tertiary education does not contribute substantially to social and economic equality. These findings call into question Japan's own belated bid to expand educational opportunity and individuals' choices in education through tuition waivers and financial aid. Japan's High Household Burden Japan differs from most other developed countries in that the government has not actively pursued a policy of expanding access to higher education in order to promote socioeconomic equality. The growth of higher education in Japan has relied primarily on household expenditure. Two out of three university slots in Japan are at private institutions, which depend almost exclusively on tuition to cover their operating expenses. In addition, even the national universities charge tuition, and that has been rising since 1971. In 1975, the tuition at national universities was about one-fifth that of private institutions on average. By 2008, it was approximately one-third. Instead of using the national universities to promote equal educational opportunities, the government has increased universities' reliance on household expenditure by holding down fiscal outlays. This stands in sharp contrast to Europe, where most public universities offer tuition-free education for students from within the European Union. The Japanese government also stands out for the meager financial aid it provides to households faced with these rising tuition levels. In his 2016 book The Political Economy of Higher Education Finance, the German political scientist Julian Garritzmann groups countries into four broad categories based on tuition levels and the proportion of students benefitting from public financial aid. In the first group, both tuition and public financial aid are low (low burden, low support), which is the model adopted in most of continental Europe. The second group is characterized by very low fees and generous public support for students (low burden, high support), as seen in the Nordic countries. The third, represented by the United States and Britain, features a combination of high tuition and generous public support (high burden, high support, but mostly loans). Lastly, we have the East Asian model, represented by Japan, in which tuition is high, and public financial aid to students is low. From the Japanese government's perspective, this is a successful model of higher education in that it keeps public expenditures to a minimum. Despite the lack of government support, higher education has definitely expanded in Japan, at least quantitatively. According to the latest statistics, about 60% of the country's 18-year-olds are enrolled in a four-year university, a level comparable to that of Britain and the United States (even allowing for differences in the way such statistics are collected). But there are distinguishing features of the Japanese system that limit educational opportunity in other ways. One issue is the narrow window for getting a college education. In Japan, almost everyone enters a college or university as a recent high school graduate. Those who leave school after graduating from high school are very unlikely to go back to earn an undergraduate degree. In other words, the opportunity to 'go back to school' at the tertiary level is quite limited. Much the same can be said of graduate school, primarily because in Japan, unlike other developed countries, an advanced degree earned midcareer holds no particular value, or premium. In sum, Japan's higher education pathway does not allow for detours or second chances. A Shift in Policy There are signs that Japan is finally shifting away from the high-burden, low-support model. In 2010, the government instituted a policy of universal tuition-free high school education, although an income threshold was subsequently imposed. Steps were also taken to ease the burden of private-school tuition on lower-income families. After Osaka Prefecture and Tokyo Metropolis introduced tuition waivers for private high schools (with an income ceiling in Tokyo's case), the national government came under pressure to provide similar benefits nationwide. In 2025, it instituted a policy to make public and private high schools alike tuition free for all families, regardless of income (effective April 2026). Moreover, this approach seems poised to spread to higher education. In April 2020, the government instituted a new program of expanded financial aid in the form of tuition reductions and grant-type scholarships based on household income. The purpose is to expand lower-income youths' access to higher education, including universities, two-year colleges, and vocational schools. There is no doubt that these policies will increase educational opportunities quantitatively by making it possible for more low-income students to attend private high schools and enroll in institutions of higher education. However, as mentioned above, simply removing or lowering financial obstacles to education will not lead to social and economic equality. In the following, I explain why, drawing on the concept of 'positional goods.' Linked Hierarchy of Universities and Employers Positional goods are material and nonmaterial assets whose value derives from their perceived ranking relative to those held by others, and which are linked to socioeconomic status in various forms. Graduation from a prestigious university or employment at a prestigious firm can be viewed as positional goods. If a university has more applicants than available slots, then admission necessarily becomes a zero-sum game. Furthermore, if a university's value to its graduates derives primarily from the relative status it confers—as opposed to the intrinsic value of the education it provides—then the issue is not just whether one is able to go to college, but which university one can get into. In Japan, this generates intense zero-sum competition for a limited number of places in a prestigious school, which is to say, a selective school (as measured by the minimum score for admission). Employment opportunities in Japan can also be understood in terms of positional goods. In Japan, a permanent, or regular, position at a large company offers the prospect of steady employment and rising wages, and such positions are customarily filled through the mass-hiring of new graduates once a year. Students begin submitting job applications the year before they are scheduled to graduate. Since the desirable job openings are limited, this, too, is a zero-sum game. Japan's employment system has been characterized as 'membership based.' What this means is that once one is hired as a regular employee, one is entitled to job security and regular promotions, which bring with them new skills as well as progressively better pay and higher status. Unlike in the West, where people are hired from outside for specific jobs, full-time workers in Japan tend to remain with the same employer from graduation to retirement, with promotions usually being made internally. As a result, the external labor market is much less developed in Japan, except for those in nonregular employment, and the opportunities for bettering one's situation by switching employers are limited. The outcome of the zero-sum race to land a good job upon graduation is therefore crucial. Opportunities for good, stable employment are unlikely to open up substantially as long as this system persists. Competition for regular positions at major firms is all the more intense today, as they are now the only jobs that promise reliable salary increases. Since economic stagnation set in three decades ago, companies have tended to hoard their profits instead of distributing them to their employees. As a result, nonregular workers and employees at smaller firms are lucky if their wages keep pace with the cost of living. Yet only graduates from high-ranking universities can compete for regular positions at high-ranking corporations. In Japan, the outcome of the zero-sum competition for college admissions (a positional good) and the opportunity for 'good' steady employment (another positional good) are so closely linked that they are essentially fused as the ultimate positional good. The hierarchy of universities and that of employers have become inextricably intertwined in a system in which the rank of the university to which one gains admission essentially determines one's subsequent career prospects. Socioeconomic Status and High School Achievement Another important point to keep in mind is that in Japan, as in other developed countries, a child's family background, including such factors as their parents' educational backgrounds and professional careers, tends to have a pronounced impact on their academic achievement from elementary school onward. Moreover, this correlation has not weakened. What this means is that, amid the current zero-sum competition for admission to a top-ranked university—which is closely linked to employment at a top-ranked firm—inequality will remain firmly entrenched unless we can find a way to reduce class-tied disparities in academic achievement prior to university admissions. The Japanese systems I have described above negate the efficacy of tuition waivers, scholarships, and other policies aimed at lowering financial barriers to equal opportunity. The membership-style employment system of Japan's major corporations, which offers the promise of stable lifetime employment, has survived stubbornly even amid sweeping changes in the nature of this country's industry and economy. Similarly, the ranking of universities on the basis of selectivity seems unlikely to change substantially despite government policies aimed at quantitatively expanding opportunities for higher education. Nor is there any sign of a shift away from the mass-hiring of new graduates, which links the two hierarchies. Such systems contributed to the economic growth and social stabilization of postwar Japan, but they have lost their utility, and as long as they continue, social and economic inequality will persist. The dearth of second chances mentioned above exacerbates the problem. The mechanisms that long brought stability to Japanese society are now contributing to inequality. What, then, is to be done? We know that simply expanding educational opportunities quantitatively will not suffice. The resources the government is spending to make public and private high school free for all regardless of household income would be better spent on efforts to minimize the impact of family background on educational achievement, such as by improving the quality of primary and secondary education. (Originally published in Japanese. Banner photo: Students gather at the University of Tokyo's Hongō campus ahead of the school's entrance exam on February 25, 2025. © Jiji.)
Japan Today
4 hours ago
- Japan Today
How covering your face became a constitutional matter: Mask debate tests free speech rights
By CHRISTINE FERNANDO Protesters confront police on the 101 Freeway near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings, drawing scorn from him. 'MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests," Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic yes. Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror," state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable." 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons, a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech but to 'restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks.' Conversely, he said, First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an 'unresolved First Amendment question' that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court 'has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment.' Few of these laws have been challenged in court, Stone said. And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has 'deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies.' 'The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government,' Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried 'the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks' in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is," ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
NHK
4 hours ago
- NHK
Trump, 5% goal overshadow Zelenskyy at NATO summit
Both Trump and Zelenskyy are attending the NATO summit in the Netherlands, but the US leader and his 5% spending goal are set to overshadow Ukraine and its troubles.
