Green Card Applicants Face New Vetting Procedures: What to Know
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
On Tuesday the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a major update on assessment of immigrant benefit applications, including those for Green Cards, which will now encompass "anti-Americanism" expressed on social media.
Newsweek contacted the USCIS, part of the Department of Homeland Security, for comment on Thursday via email outside of regular office hours.
Why It Matters
Since coming to power, the Trump administration has tightened restrictions on travel to the United States, including requiring prospective international students to provide details about their social media accounts which will be checked for "any indication of hostility" toward American "citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles."
As of April 14, data from Inside Higher Ed showed more than1,000 international students had their visas revoked due to alleged involvement in political activism, including relating to the ongoing war in Gaza. The Trump administration accused some of these students of holding antisemitic or "pro-terrorist" views, which they have widely denied.
What To Know
The USCIS updated its Policy Manual on Tuesday, with immediate effect, instructing its employees to take account of any "anti-American activity" when deciding whether to approve immigration applications including for permanent resident cards, commonly known as green cards.
According to a press release any "anti-American activity will be an overwhelmingly negative factor in any discretionary analysis" of applications. It is unclear exactly what would constitute "anti-American activity," though CBS News reports it will be based around an existing immigration law blocking citizenship from advocates of communism, totalitarianism or the overthrow of the American government.
The updated USCIS Policy Manual says its officers should factor in "whether the alien has endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused anti-American views or the views of a terrorist organization or group" when making decisions on benefits such as green cards. This process has been expanded to include vetting of social media accounts.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sign is displayed at the Border Field State Park with the US-Mexico border wall in the background on August 17, 2025 in Imperial Beach, California.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sign is displayed at the Border Field State Park with the US-Mexico border wall in the background on August 17, 2025 in Imperial Beach, California.
Kevin Carter/GETTY
The policy change impacts those immigration benefits classed as discretionary, which includes work permits and student visas as well as green cards. When considering discretionary immigration benefits the USCIS already had compliance with immigration law as a factor, and this will continue.
Earlier this month the USCIS said it would expand vetting for migrants seeking American citizenship to focus on assuring they have a "good moral character." Previously this had largely been dependent on the absence of criminal offenses or immigration law violations, but this will now include the applicants "adherence to societal norms" and "positive contributions" to wider society.
What People Are Saying
USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser said: "America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible.
"Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right."
What Happens Next?
The changes outlined by the USCIS went into effect immediately and apply to "requests pending or filed on or after the publication date."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
a minute ago
- CBS News
Gabbard barred sharing intelligence on Russia-Ukraine negotiations with "Five Eyes" partners
Washington — As Russia's war in Ukraine rages on despite high-level meetings to discuss a possible path to peace, CBS News has learned that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, issued a directive weeks ago to the U.S. intelligence community ordering that all information regarding the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations not be shared with U.S.-allied intelligence partners. The memo, dated July 20 and signed by Gabbard, directed agencies to not share information with the so-called Five Eyes, the post-World War II intelligence alliance comprising the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, multiple U.S. intelligence officials told CBS News. They spoke under condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters. The officials said the directive classified all analysis and information related to the volatile Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations as "NOFORN," or no foreign dissemination, meaning the information could not be shared with any other country or foreign nationals. The only information that could be shared was information that had already been publicly released. The memo also limited distribution of material regarding peace talks to within the agencies that created or originated the intelligence. The memo does not seem to prevent the sharing of diplomatic information gathered by other means separate from the U.S. intelligence community, or military operational information unrelated to the talks — such as the details the U.S. shares with the Ukrainian military to aid in their defensive operations. Contacted by CBS News, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence referred questions to the White House, which did not respond. "In general, the value of the Fives Eyes intelligence partnership is that when we are making and they are making policy decisions, we can both augment each other's intelligence and therefore know more about the plans, intentions, and capabilities of our adversaries," explained Steven Cash, a former intelligence officer at the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Homeland Security. "Among the reasons for that sort of default is the expectation that we and the other four are all sitting on the same side of the table with some other adversary on the other side," Cash said. He said it's important for the allies to have "a common intelligence picture" so policymakers and negotiators "can coordinate our positions and get the best deal we can, or fight the best war we can." Cash is the executive director of The Steady State, a nonprofit organization made up of former U.S. intelligence and national security professionals and government officials concerned with threats to American democracy. In March 1946, Winston Churchill spoke of the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K. and the threat of the "Iron Curtain" that had "descended across the Continent." The United States and Britain first forged their intelligence alliance in secret, signing an agreement to pool information as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Later, Canada, Australia and New Zealand joined the arrangement, transforming what began as a bilateral pact into the five-nation network that would come to be known as the Five Eyes. But now, nearly 80 years later, some former U.S. government officials warn that the breadth of Gabbard's order could undermine the intelligence community alliance — discouraging analysts from sharing insights and eroding trust among allies who have long relied on open exchanges to form a common picture of global threats and paths to successful negotiation. Cash and CBS News national security contributor Sam Vinograd, a former homeland security official, said Five Eyes often has intelligence that helps the U.S. produce comprehensive intelligence assessments, especially about Russia, given the access Five Eyes partners have to other intelligence sources. "Shutting our most trusted partners off from intelligence assessments could have a chilling effect on critical intelligence sharing if our partners believe they're being shut out of key access — including on key matters in their region. They could decide to take similar steps toward the U.S.," Vinograd said. She added, "Policy-wise, if our Five Eyes partners think they are being shut off from key information. They could choose to create new structures and channels without us. A lack of full collaboration with our closest partners could lead them to discuss matters impacting our national security without our input and perspective." Still, other former intelligence officers contend Gabbard's directive is commonplace within the U.S. intelligence community, and the criticism is much ado about nothing. They say both the U.S. and the other members of the intelligence alliance frequently withhold information from each other in diverging interest areas. Ezra Cohen, a Hudson Institute fellow who served as the acting undersecretary of defense for intelligence at the Pentagon, suggested that condemnation of Gabbard's memo likely stems from a dislike of Trump administration policies and her leadership as director of national intelligence. "There is a lot of information we do not share even with our Five Eyes partners, and it works in the reverse. There's a lot of U.K. eyes-only material. There's a lot of Australian eyes-only material," said Cohen. "Our interests are not always aligned with our Five Eyes partners," Cohen said. "And where we have diverging interests, and it's not just Ukraine, we absolutely mark things NOFORN." He admits it's possible the directive could result in depriving the U.S. of information, but maintains these types of decisions have historically been the norm between all of the Five Eyes members. He said the claim that the directive represents "a chilling of the relationship" between the U.S. and Five Eyes seems "a little bit like faux outrage." As intelligence work and diplomatic efforts continue, largely out of the public eye, the war in Ukraine continues to take a deadly toll. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned Moscow Thursday for launching hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles in an attack overnight, "as if nothing had changed at all. As if there were no efforts by the world to stop this war."
CBS News
a minute ago
- CBS News
California trucker accused of causing deadly crash extradited to Florida
A truck driver from the California city of Stockton, who is at the center of a major case getting national attention, has been extradited back to Florida. Harjinder Singh is accused of making an illegal U-turn, causing a crash in Florida that killed three people. He was held at the San Joaquin County Jail in French Camp in California's Central Valley. Florida's new Lieutenant Governor, Jay Collins, flew to California on Wednesday to pick up Singh and bring him back to Florida to face charges. On Thursday, Singh was guided onto a plane at the Stockton airport by Collins and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis confirmed the plan in a statement, saying, "We're going to extradite him back to Florida and throw the book at him." Singh, an Indian national, entered the U.S. illegally in 2018. After the deadly crash on August 12, he returned to California and was arrested four days later by U.S. Marshals. California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said this move by Florida is all for show. "Florida let a murder suspect walk. California arrested him. Now, Florida wants a photo-op picking him up," a spokesperson for Newsom's office said. The governor's office also mentioned California's sanctuary law, SB-54, which prevents local police from handing people over to immigration authorities if they don't have a criminal history. In a news conference Thursday morning, Collins questioned how Singh was able to drive a commercial vehicle and said Singh answered three of the 16 questions officers asked him at the scene in Florida. "He fled here because of the failed policies, these open border nonsense," Collins said. "The fact that you want to be a sanctuary state here because Gavin Newsom fails to understand his own citizens and the American citizens have given President Donald J Trump a mandate. Gov. Ron DeSantis has led on this. That gentleman, that thug, fled back here because he knew those policies would defend him." San Joaquin County Sheriff Patrick Withrow said that Singh had no criminal record before this crash. Withrow said it's still unclear whether the crash was an accident or intentional.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
Are Gas Prices Falling Because U.S. Oil Production Is Surging?
Simple answers are easy, but often wrong. The real ones take context, and a little more work. Below I provide the context for the question in the title, if you put in the work to read and understand. I was recently forwarded a link to a story at an NBC affiliate in Montana--'Drill, baby, drill': Gas prices might drop below $3 by end of 2025--that purports to connect the recent drop in gasoline prices with President Trump's pro-energy policies. The first line of the article states: "There has recently been a surge in oil and gas production thanks to President Donald Trump's pro-energy policies." Before we zoom in on recent oil production, it may be helpful to step back and look at the major oil production events of the past 24 years, shown in the following graphic. There were many events that have impacted oil production since 2000. During President George W. Bush's two terms, oil production continued that gradual decline that had been ongoing since the early 1970s. However, oil and gas producers were perfecting the marriage of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which would usher in the 'shale boom', or 'fracking boom' that would soon follow. The price of oil steadily rose during Bush's presidency--cracking $100 a barrel in February 2008--and that provided significant economic incentive for the fracking boom. President Obama's two terms oversaw the largest expansion of U.S. oil and natural gas production in history. Even though Obama was largely seen as being hostile to oil and gas, technology and market forces were the most significant factor in driving oil production higher during his presidency. One exception during his term took place in late 2014, when Saudi Arabia led OPEC in increasing output despite falling prices, aiming to undercut U.S. shale producers and defend market share. This led to an oil price collapse in 2015 and 2016 from over $100 to below $30 per barrel. U.S. shale ultimately cut costs and improved efficiency, but U.S. oil production was negatively impacted for a while. Nevertheless, by November 2016 it was clear that the U.S. shale industry would survive, so OPEC reached a landmark agreement with Russia and other non-OPEC producers to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd), marking the end of the price war and the birth of the OPEC+ alliance. This subsequently led to a price recovery, and a rebound of U.S. oil production growth. President Trump took office in January 2017, and oil production returned to the growth mode seen during Obama's first seven years in office. Producers broke the previous monthly oil production record set in 1970 in October of Trump's first year in office. Trump did pass pro-oil policies, but the OPEC+ production cuts that began raising oil prices were the biggest factor that returned growth back to pre-OPEC price war levels. Often lost in the discussion is that as a result of rising oil prices, the average gasoline price in the U.S. actually increased during Trump's first three years in office--until the COVID-19 pandemic arrived. The pandemic famously collapsed both oil prices--which briefly turned negative as stay-at-home orders were implemented--and oil production, which dropped by a staggering 3 million barrels per day in April and May 2020. When people fondly remember gasoline prices that dropped below $2.00 a gallon under President Trump, that was the only time it happened. When President Biden assumed office in January 2021, oil production had recovered back to 11.2 million bpd, which was still 1.8 million bpd below the pre-pandemic peak. But oil production growth would resume in Biden's second year. In each of his last two years in office, the U.S. would again set production records for both oil and natural gas production. Oil production growth was significantly helped by the price surge that took place in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, demonstrating once again the power of macro factors to move production. Before we zoom in on President Trump's second term, let's review. There have been major factors moving the oil markets over the past 24 years, but few of them are related to actions by the president. It is true that Presidents Obama and Biden passed green policies, and were generally hostile to oil and gas production. Nevertheless, Obama saw the greatest expansion of oil and gas production in U.S. history, while Biden oversaw production records in natural gas all four years he was in office, and oil production records his last two years in office. Note that this isn't to give credit but rather highlight the importance of macro factors in setting oil prices and influencing oil production. Yes, each president, including President Trump, passed policies that likely had some impact on oil and gas production. But those policies have relatively small impacts against macro factors like a fracking boom or an OPEC price war. The one exception one could argue would be the long-term implications of fracking that were primarily developed under George W. Bush. President Trump's Second Term 'Surge' Returning to the claim from the NBC affiliate, let's zoom in on the first seven months of President Trump's second term, and contrast this with President Biden's term. If there is a surge, we should see it in the following graphic, which starts in February 2021--Biden's first full month in office--and extends through mid-August 2025. Supporting data can be found at the EIA here and here. The first thing to note is that there are a number of weather-related impacts. The jump right at the beginning of Biden's term was recovery from the impacts of Winter Storm Uri. Thus, the initial surge was really just bouncing back to where production was just before the storm. Likewise, in January 2024, a severe winter storm drastically slashed oil production in Texas. And in January 2025, cold weather once again negatively impacted production in North Dakota and Texas. Following each of these events, production bounced back. The first full month of President Trump's second term was February 2025. Production rebounded that month from the previous decline, as it had following previous bad weather events. But even if you want to give President Trump credit for the February bump--when his policies hadn't had time to take effect--there's still no surge when viewed over the course of the past 4.5 years. In fact, you see significantly larger 'surges' during serious periods of Biden's presidency. Oil production in 2023 set a record that was 7.9% higher than 2022 production, and 5.0% higher than the previous 2019 record. The new record in 2024 was 2.1% higher than in 2023. Production did rise slightly to a new monthly record in March 2025, and year-to-date production is running about 2.0% ahead of last year's record pace (although it has fallen over the past two months). So, indeed we are on pace to set a new production record this year, but the pace of production is slowing. There's certainly no surge as claimed. Further, the NBC article linked previously cites former White House economic advisor Steve Moore as stating, 'Trump is into, as you called it, 'Drill, baby, drill,' and we're seeing some of the fruits of that.' In fact, the number of rigs drilling for oil has steadily fallen this year, which is the exact opposite of what Moore implies. He is correct that we are likely to set another production record this year, but it should be clear that this is a continuation of a long-term trend that appears to be slowing. Note that I didn't address natural gas, but the trends are much the same. Production has grown steadily since about 2005, but there has been no surge at any point. Why Are Gasoline Prices Falling? Gasoline prices have slipped noticeably this year, tracking the broader decline in crude oil. That's raised a familiar political talking point: some Trump supporters insist the drop is thanks to a surge in drilling unleashed by the president's policies. But the reality is more complicated. Energy markets are global, and prices move according to supply, demand, and inventories—factors that rarely hinge on the occupant of the White House. The biggest driver right now is surging global supply. OPEC+ announced that it will fully unwind its 2.2 million barrels per day of voluntary production cuts by September 2025—a full year earlier than planned. At the same time, non-OPEC producers like the U.S., Brazil, and Guyana continue to ramp up output. Altogether, global supply is set to rise by 2.5 million barrels per day this year, outpacing demand and putting clear downward pressure on prices. On the demand side, growth has been softer than expected. Consumption in China, India, and Brazil has underwhelmed, while in the OECD countries, demand is essentially flat. Japan is hitting multi-decade lows, and U.S. GDP growth has slowed to just 1.4%, which has translated into weaker fuel consumption at home. Finally, oil inventories are swelling. Stockpiles have risen for five straight months, hitting a 46-month high of 7.8 billion barrels worldwide. Rising inventories are a textbook sign of oversupply, and history shows that sustained builds like this often precede sharper price declines. In short, today's lower gasoline prices aren't the result of any single politician's actions. They're the outcome of a global supply surge colliding with tepid demand growth and rising stockpiles. The political spin may be irresistible, but the market forces at work are far larger than any administration. In the past, falling oil prices were a clear win for the U.S. economy. Back in 2005, the country imported around 12.5 million barrels per day of crude oil, so cheaper oil meant a smaller import bill and more money in consumers' pockets. But the U.S. has since flipped from being the world's largest importer to a net exporter of crude and refined products. That changes the calculus. Lower oil prices still benefit consumers at the pump, but they also strain one of America's most important industries, reduce export revenues, and widen the trade deficit. For a country that now relies on energy exports as a pillar of economic strength, cheap oil is a double-edged sword. Conclusion It's tempting to give too much credit or blame to a president for what's happening at the pump. But the reality is that gasoline prices are dictated by forces much bigger than any one administration. Technological shifts like fracking, geopolitical decisions by OPEC+, weather disruptions, and global demand trends shape oil markets far more decisively than executive orders or campaign slogans. That doesn't mean policy is irrelevant—it can tilt the playing field at the margins. But the recent slide in prices is a reminder that energy is a global business, and the U.S. is both a beneficiary and a casualty of its volatility. Consumers welcome relief at the gas station, yet as an energy-exporting nation, we also absorb the downside of weaker prices. The bottom line: partisans may spin the price of gasoline, but the true story lies in the global interplay of supply, demand, and investment. And that story is always bigger—and more complicated—than Washington.
