
Trump vows ‘comprehensive and thorough vetting' for foreign students in US universities
US 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 US, 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 18 June and sent to US missions on Wednesday.
On 27 May, 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 cable dated 18 June, 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 programme 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.
READ | Foreign students want to transfer from Harvard over Trump 'fear, concern, and confusion'
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% 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% 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


New York Times
38 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Fails to See Transgender Teens
Imagine you are a transgender teenager. Don't ask me how you know that you are transgender: That question is no more appropriate or relevant than asking people how they know that they are gay or Jewish or Black. Maybe you've always known. Maybe a classmate or a stranger said something that alerted you to it. Maybe you know the way teenagers often know things: As the world came into focus, this thing about yourself became clear as could be. In any case, you know. Like many teenagers, you spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the mirror. You regularly become obsessed with what you perceive as imperfections or, less often, advantages in your appearance. You adopt and abandon hairstyles, items of clothing and affectations. You will shed much of what you are experimenting with now, but some elements will stick. They will form the core of the person you are in the world. Speaking of the world: Moving through it is awkward, because you are a teenager. Being trans can make it more awkward still. Like when you are in a public place — including your school — and you need to use the bathroom. If you want to consider transitioning medically, you have to discuss the most intimate details of your life with doctors and involve your parents. I am asking you to imagine what it's like to be a transgender teenager because that is exactly what the majority of the Supreme Court justices refused to do when they ruled in United States v. Skrmetti on Wednesday, upholding a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The plaintiffs in the case are three trans teenagers from Tennessee, their parents and a doctor, but there is scarcely a reference to them in the majority or concurring opinions. It's often the case that 'courts enact discrimination through abstraction,' Chase Strangio, a director of the American Civil Liberties Union's L.G.B.T.Q. and H.I.V. Rights Project, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, told me. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case that upheld the legality of racial segregation; in Korematsu v. United States, which in 1944 affirmed the internment of Japanese Americans; in Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 case that upheld Georgia's sodomy laws; and in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which three years ago took away the constitutional guarantee of abortion rights, the Supreme Court seemed blind to the existence of the people who would suffer most from the consequences of its decisions. In Skrmetti, the plaintiffs and the Biden administration said that the Tennessee law should be held to a higher level of scrutiny because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If a state law creates conditions for treating people differently on the basis of sex, the state must prove that the law serves an important purpose that justifies such discrimination. If the differential treatment is based on race, the level of scrutiny is even higher. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Washington Post
40 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What did Sen. Alex Padilla get handcuffed for?
Last week, a Democratic senator walked into a news conference with questions. He left in handcuffs. 'Is this really happening?' Alex Padilla thought to himself. This week, he's thinking about what happened. 'Never did I imagine hands on me, and let alone being put on the ground,' Padilla, California's first Latino senator, said in an interview at an office inside the Capitol this week.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump delays US TikTok ban again
Donald Trump has signed an executive order to keep TikTok running in the US for another 90 days to give his administration more time to broker a deal to bring the social media platform under American ownership. It is the third time the president has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on January 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban — approved by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court — took effect. The second was in April when White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with US ownership that fell apart after China backed out after Mr Trump's tariff announcement. It is not clear how many times he can — or will — keep extending the ban as the government continues to try to negotiate a deal for TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance. While there is no clear legal basis for the extensions, so far there have been no legal challenges to fight them. Mr Trump has gained more than 15 million followers on TikTok since he joined last year, and he has credited the trendsetting platform with helping him gain traction among young voters. He said in January that he has a 'warm spot for TikTok'. As the extensions continue, it appears less likely that TikTok will be banned in the US any time soon. The decision to keep the site alive through an executive order has received some scrutiny, but it has not faced a legal challenge in court, unlike many of Mr Trump's other executive orders. Jeremy Goldman, analyst at Emarketer, called TikTok's US situation 'deadline purgatory'. The whole thing 'is starting to feel less like a ticking clock and more like a looped ringtone. This political Groundhog Day is starting to resemble the debt ceiling drama: a recurring threat with no real resolution'. For now, TikTok continues to function for its 170 million users in the US, and tech giants Apple, Google and Oracle were persuaded to continue to support the app, on the promise that Mr Trump's Justice Department would not use the law to seek potentially steep fines against them. Americans are even more closely divided on what to do about TikTok than they were two years ago. A recent Pew Research Centre survey found that about a third of Americans supported a ban, down from 50% in March 2023. Roughly a third said they would oppose a ban, and a similar percentage said they were not sure. Among those who supported a ban, about eight in 10 cited concerns over users' data security being at risk as a major factor in their decision, according to the report. Democratic senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Trump administration is again 'flouting the law and ignoring its own national security findings about the risks' posed by a China-controlled TikTok. 'An executive order can't sidestep the law, but that's exactly what the president is trying to do,' he added.