Why US Wants Access To All Social Media Accounts Of Visa Applicants: Explained

The United States has mandated that all visa applicants, including Indians, set their social media accounts to public for enhanced screening of tourists and immigrants in view of "national security and public safety." The US Embassy in India last week asked visa applicants to list the usernames or handles of every social media platform they have used over the last five years in their application form.

"Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media accounts to public to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States under US law," the US Embassy said in a notification on June 23.

A similar notification was issued for DS-160 visa applicants on June 26. The increased focus on social media scrutiny for securing US visas, including for Indians working and studying in American institutions, has become more precarious.

Why Social Media Accounts Are Under Scrutiny?

The provision for social media vetting for US visa applicants has been in place since 2019. However, the new announcements signal that foreign nationals will be subjected to an increased level of scrutiny. The enhanced surveillance comes amid President Trump's crackdown on immigration, leading to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids on illegal immigrants. 

It also coincides with rising anti-Israel protests and anti-ICE sentiment on college campuses across the United States, particularly after several government actions against pro-Palestinian students. The Trump administration appears to be filtering out applicants who have dissenting views, especially on geopolitical flashpoints such as Israel-Palestine or immigration enforcement. Authorities appear to be monitoring individuals' cultural values, political leanings, and perceived "radical" views expressed on social media.

Which Social Media Accounts Are Being Monitored

Some social media accounts that applicants will have to make public and report to immigration authorities include Reddit, Tumblr,  Instagram, Twitter (now X), LinkedIn, YouTube, Threads and Facebook. Visa applicants may also have to share the handles of several Chinese social media platforms like TikTok and WeChat, and other websites such as Bluesky, unlisted blogging spaces, or personal websites.

This means US authorities may track an individual's all personal and professional social media activities, including posts, uploaded photos/videos, replies, past comments, status updates, tagged pictures/posts, and even "liked".

How Can Applicants Sanitise Their Online Footprints?

Before making their social media accounts public and handing over their information to US immigration authorities, users can clean up their accounts and delete sensitive or personal information. Minor social media users can carry out this exercise under adult supervision. 

Applicants can also delete their social media accounts, but it's not a foolproof way to avoid scrutiny. Several social media platforms retain user data for weeks or months after the accounts are deleted, meaning old accounts can still show up during background checks.

There is no official notification regarding the timeframe for which the visa applicants need to keep their social media accounts public. However, to play safe, they can keep their accounts open from the time of submitting the visa application till the time applicants get a visa and enter the US.

Is The Move Legal?

Technically, the US cannot force applicants to comply with the social media mandate. But failure to comply could delay or jeopardise the visa process. This legal grey area has raised red flags among privacy experts.

"The US government is endorsing the violation of a fundamental principle of privacy hygiene," said Sophia Cope, a Senior Staff Attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told The Hindu.

"Ascribing a nefarious intent and penalising would-be students or visitors...for keeping their online presence shielded from the general public...is an outrage," she added.

She also warned that such monitoring could curb free speech and would likely be ineffective in preventing security threats.