U.S. Resumes Student Visa Interviews with Social Media Rule

U.S. Resumes Student Visa Interviews with New Social Media Rule

New Rule for Visa Applicants

The U.S. State Department has resumed international student visa interviews. All applicants must now set their social media accounts to public.

This rule applies to F, M, and J visa categories. Consular officers will screen posts for anti-American content. Refusal to comply may lead to visa rejection. The policy aims to enhance national security.

Background of the Policy

Social media vetting began in 2019 for some visa applicants. The Trump administration paused new student visa interviews in May 2025.

The halt allowed time to expand vetting processes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered stricter screening. The policy targets content hostile to U.S. culture or values. It follows concerns over pro-Palestinian campus protests.

How Social Media Is Checked

Consular officers now review applicants’ social media activity. They look for posts, shares, or comments on platforms like Instagram, X, and TikTok.

Content supporting terrorism or anti-American sentiment is flagged. Screenshots of derogatory posts are saved as evidence. If no issues are found, officers note the review. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service also screens accounts for green card applicants.

Consequences for Applicants

Non-public accounts may raise suspicion of evasion. Applicants risk visa denial for anti-American posts. Delays in processing are expected due to increased scrutiny. Students may self-censor or delete old posts. The policy could deter international students from applying. Universities fear enrollment drops, impacting their budgets.

When the Rule Applies

The rule took effect on June 18, 2025. Embassies resumed interviews after a month-long pause. All new F, M, and J visa applicants must comply. Existing visa holders are not affected unless reapplying. The State Department issued guidance to consulates worldwide. Screening applies to all applicants, not just those flagged for activism.

Impact on U.S. Universities

International students contribute $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy. They support over 378,000 jobs annually. Many pay full tuition, vital for university budgets.

The new rule may reduce applications, especially from countries like India and China. Enrollment declines could hurt research programs. Critics argue the policy unfairly targets students and stifles free speech.

The U.S. decision to resume student visa interviews with mandatory social media screening marks a significant shift.

Announced on June 18, 2025, the policy requires all F, M, and J visa applicants to make their social media accounts public. Consular officers will examine posts for signs of hostility toward the U.S., its government, or its values. Refusing to unlock accounts could lead to visa rejection, signaling potential evasion.

Trump administration

This move builds on earlier vetting efforts. Since 2019, visa applicants have provided social media handles. In May 2025, the Trump administration paused new interviews to overhaul screening processes.

The pause followed concerns over campus protests, particularly those supporting Palestinian causes. Secretary Rubio’s directive emphasized national security, expanding checks to all applicants.

The vetting process is intensive. Officers scour platforms like Instagram and X for problematic content. They document findings, saving screenshots of posts deemed threatening.

This applies to new applicants and aligns with broader immigration scrutiny, including green card reviews. The policy aims to prevent entry by those perceived as risks.

For students, the stakes are high. Non-compliance or controversial posts could jeopardize visas. Many are deleting old content or self-censoring.

Processing delays are likely, disrupting academic plans. The policy may discourage applications, especially from India, which sends the most students to the U.S.

Universities face financial strain. International students, who often pay full tuition, are critical to budgets. A decline in enrollment could cut research funding and jobs. Critics, including NAFSA, call the rule a misuse of resources, arguing students pose little threat. The policy’s long-term impact on U.S. higher education remains uncertain.

Share This Post: