Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

The US revokes visas over comments made about Charlie Kirk

The government has cancelled the visas of several foreign nationals over their public comments about Charlie Kirk’s murder. 

‘The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans’ wrote the US Department of State on X this week. The post was in reference to the government’s decision to revoke several visas over comments made about the late Charlie Kirk.

In six screenshots, social media users were shown to have made public statements about Kirk’s murder that were deemed to be celebratory.

Kirk, an ally of President Trump and a popular far-right commentator, was shot while speaking at a university event in Utah last month. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Tuesday.

To bask in the death of any public figure online is certainly nothing to be celebrated, and Kirk’s shooting was a horrific act of violence that has no place in modern society or democracy. But the response to these comments reeks of irony – considering the Trump administration’s persistent focus on ‘free speech’.

Civil liberties advocates are warning that the decision to strip visas from at least six foreign nationals represents yet another example of dangerous government crackdowns on the protected speech they claim to champion.

This is part of an escalating government-wide campaign to suppress criticism of Kirk.

‘You can’t defend ‘our culture’ by eroding the very cornerstone of what America stands for: freedom of speech and thought,’ Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said in a statement. ‘The Trump administration must stop punishing people for their opinions alone.’

As social media increasingly becomes a space for data harvesting and less a platform for connection, there are mounting fears that the digital realm will become a means of oppressing freedoms and civil liberties – if it hasn’t already.

Visa revocations under these parameters ‘are censorship, plain and simple’ Carrie DeCell, Knight First Amendment Institute’s senior staff attorney and legislative adviser, said in a press release.

‘Mere ‘mockery’ can’t be grounds for adverse government action – whether revocation of broadcast licenses or revocation of visas’ DeCell continued.

According to The Guardian, the move followed a week of mounting pressure from conservative media figures, who accused the Biden-era State Department of being too lenient on ‘foreign agitators’ celebrating Kirk’s death online.

But in a twist that could only belong to the surreal political theatre of 2025, the policy was instead executed under Donald Trump’s second administration – one that has styled itself as both the guardian of ‘patriotic values’ and the vanguard of ‘uncensored speech.’

In practice, however, the rhetoric of ‘freedom’ appears to apply only to those whose speech flatters the government.

AP News confirmed that at least six foreign nationals had their visas revoked, including journalists, academics, and exchange students, some of whom had made sardonic or darkly humorous comments about Kirk’s death. None were accused of inciting violence or making direct threats.

The decision came just a day after Trump posthumously awarded Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom – a symbolic act that cemented his transformation from controversial influencer to conservative martyr.

The revocations echo the punitive logic of earlier Trump-era crackdowns on journalists and activists.

The administration’s track record includes barring reporters from White House briefings, attempting to blacklist critics of Israel under the guise of combating antisemitism, and expanding surveillance powers over ‘digital threats.’ This latest move appears to extend that ethos beyond U.S. borders,  exporting censorship as a matter of foreign policy.

That sentiment resonates across a political landscape already steeped in fear and performance. To be online in 2025 is to participate in a theatre of reaction where every post is subject to scrutiny.

From a practical standpoint, the decision may also set a dangerous precedent. As immigration experts told AP, revoking visas on such subjective grounds risks violating international norms and undermining the principle of due process.

The irony, of course, is that Charlie Kirk himself built a career on testing the limits of free speech.

His podcast and Turning Point USA events routinely featured inflammatory statements about immigrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ+ people –statements protected, rightly, under the First Amendment.

The same logic that defended Kirk’s provocations is now being inverted to silence those who offend his legacy.

Accessibility