KATHMANDU: On June 18, 2025, the U.S. State Department introduced new visa rules requiring international students to make their social media accounts public for scrutiny. The policy, part of the Trump Administration’s broader national security agenda, targets F, M, and J visa applicants.

It mandates expanded online vetting to identify potential threats or “hostile attitudes” toward the U.S. This move has sparked concerns over privacy, academic freedom, and discrimination. This explainer will address seven key questions to clarify the implications of the new rules.

What is the current status of the U.S. student visa appointment process?

After weeks of suspension, U.S. embassies have resumed student visa appointments. This pause, coupled with enhanced security checks, drew criticism from Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, who warned it causes “unnecessary delays, fuels uncertainty, and damages our reputation as a welcoming destination for global talent.”

The new guidance advises consular officers to manage workload by scheduling fewer appointments and to prioritize students attending colleges where international students comprise less than 15% of the student body—excluding many elite universities like Harvard, where foreign students exceed 25%.

What is the new U.S. visa policy regarding social media for student applicants?

The U.S. State Department has issued a new directive requiring all prospective international students applying for F (academic), M (vocational), and J (exchange) visas to make their social media profiles public.

This means that before or during the application process, students must change their social media privacy settings to allow full visibility of their content.

This shift marks an escalation in vetting procedures for visa issuance and is part of the Trump Administration’s broader national security agenda. The instruction was communicated through a formal cable to U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide. The cable clarifies that if a student applicant does not comply with this requirement or limits access to their online profiles, it could be construed as an effort to hide certain activities or evade scrutiny.

This policy significantly broadens the scope of visa background checks, aiming to monitor and assess the “entire online presence” of visa applicants before entry is granted into the United States.

Why is the U.S. government implementing these new social media checks?

According to the Trump Administration, every visa decision is fundamentally a national security matter. The new policy is rooted in the belief that “a U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right,” and reflects a broader governmental emphasis on safeguarding American citizens, institutions, and interests from potential threats.

As detailed in the official cable, the administration wants to ensure that no individual who poses a risk to national security is granted entry, even temporarily, under a student visa. Consular officers are now directed to identify applicants who may harbor “hostile attitudes” toward U.S. citizens, government, institutions, or cultural values.

These measures are also meant to screen out individuals who may support or promote terrorism, antisemitic violence, or other forms of ideological extremism. The policy suggests that even expressions made online—such as likes, shares, or comments—may now be used as indicators of an applicant’s intentions and eligibility for entry into the United States under the student visa program.

Does this new policy apply to all applicants or just new ones?

The directive has a retroactive element and applies to a wide range of current and future visa cases. Not only does it apply to new applicants who are beginning the process, but it also affects those whose visa cases are already underway. This includes students waiting for interviews, those who have completed interviews but whose visas have not yet been granted, and even those whose interviews were waived under standard or expedited processing.

The U.S. State Department has made it mandatory for all consulates and embassies to implement this policy within five business days of receiving the directive.

The sweeping nature of the policy raises concerns about transparency and fairness, as many students already in the pipeline for visa approval may now be subject to additional scrutiny they were not previously informed about. Critics argue that this retroactive enforcement could delay or disrupt academic plans, especially for students set to begin studies in the near term.

What are consular officers being told to look for in applicants’ online presence?

Consular officers are instructed to thoroughly examine an applicant’s online footprint for any “potentially derogatory information.” This includes not only explicit support for terrorist groups or unlawful antisemitic behavior but also any evidence of political activism or views deemed “hostile” to the United States.

The cable gives an example of an applicant endorsing Hamas or expressing sympathy for its activities as a red flag. Furthermore, the policy expands scrutiny to students who have a history of political activism—especially activism linked to violence or radical ideologies. In such cases, consular officers are required to assess whether the applicant is likely to continue these activities in the U.S., and whether those activities would be consistent with the purpose of their student visa.

This can involve subjective judgment, which has raised concerns about how officers interpret online expression, particularly from students coming from politically active societies or those involved in human rights or pro-Palestinian movements.

How will consulates handle the increased workload caused by these changes?

The new screening process imposes significant additional workload on consular officers, and the cable acknowledges this. As a result, embassies are advised to scale back the number of visa appointments they schedule in order to accommodate the time and resources required for deeper vetting.

The consulates are instructed to “consider overall scheduling volume and the resource demands of appropriate vetting.” Moreover, embassies are told to prioritize applicants bound for U.S. colleges where international students make up less than 15% of the student population.

This directive disproportionately affects prestigious universities with high international student representation.

According to a 2023 Associated Press analysis, over 200 U.S. universities—especially elite institutions like those in the Ivy League—have more than 15% international enrollment.

Harvard University, for instance, has over 25% foreign students. The Trump Administration has previously criticized Harvard for its level of foreign enrollment and targeted the institution in retaliation for not meeting certain governmental demands.

How broad is the scope of the “online presence” that will be reviewed?

The guidance issued by the State Department makes it clear that the term “online presence” is not limited to conventional social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or X (formerly Twitter). It also includes data available through commercial databases such as LexisNexis.

This means consular officers will have access to a wider array of personal, academic, legal, and possibly financial information. Officers are required to take detailed case notes and, when necessary, include screenshots of any concerning content for further internal review. Ultimately, whether a student’s online activity represents a threat or undermines the credibility of their application is left to the discretion of the consular officer.

This gives considerable latitude to individual officers in interpreting content and deciding whether it disqualifies the applicant. Critics worry this opens the door to subjective judgments, inconsistencies, and the potential for discrimination, especially when cultural or political expression is involved.

What are the criticisms of this new vetting policy for international students?

The new policy has drawn criticism from education experts, human rights advocates, and immigration policy analysts who say it unfairly targets international students, undermines academic freedom, and threatens the U.S.’s reputation as a destination for global talent.

Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, stated that the stricter vetting “causes unnecessary delays, fuels uncertainty, and damages our reputation as a welcoming destination.”

Critics argue that the directive could be used selectively, especially against students from regions or backgrounds that are politically sensitive or heavily surveilled. They also highlight how participation in peaceful activism—such as pro-Palestinian student protests—might be wrongly interpreted as a threat.

Experts in higher education, including Lili Yang from the University of Hong Kong, warn that these policies may have a chilling effect on campus free speech and expression. They say that such measures will likely discourage international students from applying to U.S. institutions, threatening both the diversity and academic excellence for which American universities are globally known.