"All tourists will have to undergo a social media screening before being allowed entry into the US under new plans being considered by the country’s border force."
10 Dec 2025 — 1 min read
[Sky News]
This is a proposal by Customs and Border Protection, not an implemented policy, which means there’s time to fight it:
“According to a notice published in America’s federal register on Tuesday, foreign tourists would need to provide their social media from the last five years.
It will be "mandatory" to hand over the information, and other details - including email addresses and telephone numbers used in the last five years, as w…
"All tourists will have to undergo a social media screening before being allowed entry into the US under new plans being considered by the country’s border force."
10 Dec 2025 — 1 min read
[Sky News]
This is a proposal by Customs and Border Protection, not an implemented policy, which means there’s time to fight it:
“According to a notice published in America’s federal register on Tuesday, foreign tourists would need to provide their social media from the last five years.
It will be "mandatory" to hand over the information, and other details - including email addresses and telephone numbers used in the last five years, as well as the names, addresses, numbers, and birthdays of family members - will also be required.”
You would also need to take a selfie.
As the article points out, this has already been happening sporadically, with some people refused entry due to their social media posts, but the proposal would turn it into systemic policy.
This follows a policy earlier this year that forced applicants for student and exchange visas to switch their social media accounts to public:
“The State Department also indicated that if applicants refuse to unlock their accounts or otherwise don’t maintain a social media presence, the government may interpret it as an attempt to evade the requirement or deliberately hide online activity.”
Once data is handed over, existing policies allow for the government to keep surveilling accounts — this isn’t a one-time analysis (although that would be invasive enough). This makes everyone less safe, but is particularly harmful for people from vulnerable communities. As the EFF has pointed out, woman and LGBTQ+ people have more reasons to set their profiles to private, as they’re more likely to experience abuse. Not to mention activists, journalists, and so on.
The more privileged (or isolated) someone is, the more likely they are to wave concerns about surveillance away because they “have nothing to hide”. It’s a common fallacy. We all have the right to privacy in our personal lives; it’s why there are locks on our doors.
These are extraordinary actions for a country that claims to believe in freedom and democracy to take, but of course, the Trump administration has not stood up for either of those things. It’s easy to imagine a person who might otherwise have considered visiting to the United States choosing to visit somewhere else instead. And, perhaps, investing in other countries and supporting the economies of nations that uphold civil rights rather than choosing to erode them. I would not blame them.
[Link]