Trump administration defends right to ban content moderation experts from US
Source: The Verge
Background
The Trump administration is fighting to keep some social‑media moderation advocates out of the United States.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg heard arguments in a lawsuit between the nonprofit Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with other Trump‑era officials. The suit challenges a State Department policy that allows the restriction of visas for foreign officials who “demand that American tech platforms adopt global content‑moderation policies.”
CITR seeks a preliminary injunction to block the policy, which the State Department has already invoked when it sanctioned five individuals working on online disinformation, including former European official Thierry Breton. The organization argues that the policy would silence researchers studying content moderation and misinformation online.
The policy was announced in May 2022, and the State Department issued the sanctions in December, describing the targets as having “advanced censorship crackdowns by foreign states.” The sanctioned group included Breton and executives from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Global Disinformation Index (GDI), both members of CITR. CCDH’s CEO Imran Ahmed, a target of 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.” – Brandi Geurkink, CITR executive director
Legal Challenge
CITR argues that the policy infringes scholars’ ability to speak and publish freely. In court declarations and filings, researchers described self‑censoring or delaying publication out of fear that their visa status could be jeopardized.
Government’s Defense
Attorney Zack Lindsey contended that the policy is narrowly tailored to target conduct of individuals working for foreign governments, implying that independent researchers are not at risk.
CITR’s Counter‑Arguments
- Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, argued there is no evidence that figures like Ahmed were coordinating with a foreign government.
- When Judge Boasberg asked whether the policy’s application beyond its stated criteria “explodes” the government’s argument, Lindsey maintained that Ahmed wasn’t actually targeted, despite a memo from Rubio suggesting Ahmed was deportable.
- DeCell highlighted the ambiguity in defining “working with a foreign government,” suggesting it may be intentional.
Judicial Questions
Judge Boasberg raised several points:
- Standing: Whether CITR has sufficient grounds to sue.
- Constitutional Review: He questioned the government’s claim that a court can only assess constitutionality in the context of an individual visa holder’s deportation case, asking, “No matter how preposterous a policy that was promulgated, there could be no constitutional challenge?”
The judge indicated he will soon decide if the policy must be halted to prevent irreparable harm, stating, “I will do my best to get it all figured out.”
Potential Impact
If the injunction is granted, it could preserve the ability of scholars and independent experts to conduct and publish research on content moderation and misinformation without fear of visa restrictions. Conversely, upholding the policy would expand the State Department’s authority to deny visas based on perceived involvement in foreign‑government‑directed censorship efforts.