The visa revocations have sparked a heated debate over the limits of free speech and government authority, particularly regarding noncitizens. The Pentagon and Secret Service have also disciplined employees for similar posts about Kirk, while Vice President JD Vance has encouraged the public to contact employers of anyone who celebrates the activist’s killing.
Legal experts say the government’s power to revoke or deny visas based on speech remains an unsettled area of law. Eugene Volokh, a UCLA professor emeritus of law and First Amendment scholar, told CBS News that while noncitizens enjoy the same protections from criminal punishment for speech as U.S. citizens, immigration actions based on speech fall into a gray area. “The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has broad latitude to refuse to admit people into the country,” Volokh explained. “But whether federal officials can deport people who are already in the U.S. due to their speech is less clear.”
The revocations also come amid a wider campaign by the Trump administration to restrict visas on political or security grounds. The administration has sought to deport international students allegedly tied to campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza and recently revoked Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s visa for remarks urging U.S. soldiers to defy presidential orders during a protest in New York.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and other federal officials have defended the actions, arguing that those who glorify violence against Americans should not be allowed to remain in or enter the United States. Civil rights advocates, however, warn that punishing speech — even deeply offensive speech — risks setting a precedent that could erode First Amendment principles.
As the legal and ethical debate unfolds, the State Department has continued to review social media content from visa holders worldwide. Officials say further revocations are possible as part of what they describe as an ongoing effort to protect Americans from threats — both physical and rhetorical — in an increasingly polarized digital age.