Trump administration defends barring content moderation experts from US

The Trump administration is defending its authority to bar certain foreign researchers and content moderation experts from entering the United States, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and immigration policy.

On Wednesday, U. S. District Court Judge James Boasberg presided over oral arguments in a case brought by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other administration officials. At the center of the dispute is a policy that allows visa restrictions to be imposed on foreign officials who “demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies.” The CITR is seeking a preliminary injunction to block the policy, which the State Department has already invoked to sanction five individuals involved in combating online disinformation. Among them is Thierry Breton, the former European official who led enforcement of the EU’s digital services regulations. The CITR argues that leaving the policy in place will have a chilling effect on researchers studying content moderation and misinformation.

The policy was first announced in May of last year, and the State Department issued sanctions in December, claiming the targets “advanced censorship crackdowns by foreign states.” The sanctioned group includes Breton, as well as executives from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), both of which are CITR members. Notably, CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed, who was named in the sanctions, is a lawful permanent U. S. resident, according to CITR.

“One of the worst parts about a chilling effect is all of the research that won’t happen,” said Brandi Geurkink, CITR’s executive director, during a press conference after the hearing. In court declarations, researchers described withholding public discussion of their work out of fear that it could jeopardize their visa status or delay publication of sensitive findings before international travel.

The government’s defense hinges on a narrow interpretation of the policy. Attorney Zack Lindsey argued that it applies only to individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments, meaning independent researchers should have no cause for concern. Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute representing CITR, countered that there is no evidence figures like Ahmed coordinated with any foreign government. Judge Boasberg pressed Lindsey on this point, asking if applying the policy outside its stated criteria would “explode your argument.” Lindsey insisted that Ahmed was not actually targeted under the policy, even though Secretary Rubio referenced it in a memo stating Ahmed was deportable. He argued that the details of individual cases do not undermine the State Department’s broader authority.

The ambiguity over what constitutes working with a foreign government, DeCell argued, “seems to be part of the point.” The State Department appears to be preserving a broad right to restrict visas, regardless of the specific language of any given policy.

The outcome of the injunction request may hinge on procedural questions, such as whether CITR has legal standing to sue. However, Boasberg challenged another major government claim: that courts can only review the constitutionality of a policy in the context of a deportation case for an individual visa holder. “No matter how preposterous a policy that was promulgated, there could be no constitutional challenge?” he asked hypothetically. He will soon decide whether the policy must be halted to prevent irreparable harm. “I will do my best to get it all figured out,” Boasberg said.