Will Speech For Visa Access Become A Global Phenomenon?

Latest stories

Russian interference expected in election on Ukraine's border

India and Ghana: Narendra Modi's visit rekindles historical ties

To some on this July Fourth, these truths aren't self-evident A dangerous precedent for free expression

At its core, this policy is about punishing speech. It replaces the presumption of openness (and the freedom of speech, opinion and expression) with the presumption of suspicion. And while it may seem targeted and technical (after all, its just three visa categories, right?), its implications are sweeping. Not only domestically in the US, but for us in the rest of the world. Especially for us in the rest of the world.

The US risks creating a“speech-for-access” visa model – in which participating in global mobility requires surrendering digital privacy and political expression. This undermines not only free speech but the legitimacy of American democracy on the world stage. It undermines our human rights.

I've seen what happens when activists are exposed

For five years, I led public policy for Facebook during a period of authoritarianism around the region. I also worked closely with human rights defenders and grassroots activists from across Southeast Asia. They endured digital surveillance, online harassment, state-backed doxxing and gendered disinformation campaigns designed to silence them.

We worked tirelessly to help ensure safer spaces – on the very platforms now being used as border checkpoints.

When the US mandates that these individuals expose their networks and opinions publicly, it does nothing to“establish identity.” What it does is increase risk, undermine digital safety, curtail human rights and send a signal: Your dissent disqualifies you. It squashes critical thinking that would have otherwise surfaced had people not been in need of access to the United States.

The hypocrisy is stark

Just weeks ago, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions on foreign officials who censor Americans, stating:

“Free speech is essential to the American way of life - a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”

Yet, under this new policy, the US government is doing to others exactly what it condemns: compelling individuals to reveal their speech, political views and associations in exchange for mobility.

So what will US officials be screening for? Opposition to genocide in Gaza? Advocacy for DEI or trans rights? Criticism of powerful US tech monopolies or climate inaction? Or affiliation with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement?

Rubio has already said they will screen for anti-semitism – but when“anti-Semitism” is so vaguely defined that protest against Israeli policy and action itself becomes suspect, and when criticism of US allies becomes grounds for exclusion, the line between foreign censorship and domestic repression collapses.

Chilling effects will ripple worldwide

This policy gives authoritarian regimes a convenient justification for their own surveillance:“Even the United States does it.”

It emboldens governments to target foreign activists, suppress dissent, and erode international norms of digital freedom. The global civil society networks that hold power to account – power in the forms of corporations, militaries and tech platforms – are now at risk of fragmentation, surveillance, muzzling and exclusion.

And the targets are clear: critics of extractive capitalism, whistleblowers, climate activists, independent scholars and advocates for the global majority.

A race to the bottom

Most alarmingly, what happens when other countries – especially those that are arguably not democracies – implement similar requirements?

What we will see is the rapid elimination of critical speech on democracy, human rights, inclusion, diversity and a host of progressive human rights issues we have become accustomed to in the 21st century. Will silence – the absence of any criticism – become a staple requirement for being able to move around the world?

Surely this will not remain limited to the United States, especially as the technological threshold to quickly surveil public social media becomes easier and easier. The risks and the implications are profound.

What happens when soft authoritarian regimes try out this new policy, enforced with AI-driven tools, to prevent criticism of their own actions? How will this filter out academics, civil society leaders, business leaders and others who want to attend conferences, seminars or meet up with their networks?

Will speech-for-access become a global phenomenon?

This also undermines global tech governance

At a time when humanity faces profound questions around frontier technologies – AI, surveillance, disinformation, platform power – we need broad, diverse, global participation. Yet so much of the discourse still happens in New York, Washington, or Silicon Valley.

Who will now be absent from those rooms? Who will self-censor rather than risk exposure? What vital warnings, critiques and new paradigms will be lost?

By requiring public digital exposure for entry, the US limits not just who can speak but who gets heard.

This moment demands clarity, courage and consequence

What we're witnessing is more than just a misguided visa policy. It is a fundamental redefinition of who gets to participate in the global discourse – on democracy, rights, technology and justice. When the United States, once a self-proclaimed defender of civil liberties, begins to demand access to private digital lives as a condition for entry, the signal it sends is terrifying: our speech is conditional and our dissent is suspect. And, importantly, our access is political.