"Deported for a Single Post?" The Current State of Free Speech Bound by AI and Visas: The Battle of EFF and Labor Unions Against the Trump Administration

Introduction: What the Lawsuit Unveiled

On October 16, 2025 (U.S. time), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and three major U.S. labor unions (UAW, CWA, AFT) filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The target is the large-scale social media surveillance and crackdown program advanced by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argue that this is "ideological surveillance" that monitors and sanctions the speech of legal residents and visa holders who express views the government disfavors, violating the First Amendment (freedom of expression) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of the United States Constitution. The filing was reported by multiple media outlets, including TechCrunch, and officially announced by the EFF on the same day.TechCrunch

The complaint (UAW v. U.S. Department of State) is a 95-page document detailing the operation and chilling effects of the surveillance, as well as specific damages. The defendants include high-ranking administration officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.Electronic Frontier Foundation

What's "New": The Direct Link Between AI, Social Media, and Immigration Policy

The focus this time is on the State Department's new policy known in reports as "Catch and Revoke." It involves continuously scanning the posts of visa holders, students, and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) using AI, and imposing adverse actions such as visa revocation if speech critical of the government or deemed anti-American is detected. Axios and The Verge emphasize that this is the first major lawsuit to directly challenge the legality of the surveillance itself.Axios

In its press release and commentary, the EFF points out that while the government has "rebranded" the program with a "more innocuous-sounding name," it has contracted to continue the surveillance with an investment of over $100 million. The targets are primarily visa holders and LPRs within the U.S., including surveillance focused on university affiliates.Electronic Frontier Foundation

Specific "Actions": Visa Revocations Surrounding the Charlie Kirk Incident

In recent weeks, there have been multiple mentions on social media and in reports surrounding the State Department about at least six visa revocations related to posts concerning the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Various reports and journalist posts have conveyed this, with State Department-affiliated accounts emphasizing that "visas are a privilege, not a right." Such "demonstrative" communications align with the "intimidation campaign" depicted in the lawsuit.Reuters

Who Are the Plaintiffs and What Are They Claiming?

The three plaintiff unions—UAW (United Auto Workers), CWA (Communications Workers of America), and AFT (American Federation of Teachers)—highlight the fact that a significant number of non-citizens are among their members, claiming that surveillance has led to a decline in online union activity participation. The complaint lists the erosion of organizational foundations, including withdrawal from leadership participation, deletion of union-related posts on social media, and avoidance of union elections and demonstrations. The EFF's case page summarizes similar claims.Electronic Frontier Foundation

Additionally, The Register in the UK reports that, according to EFF's investigation, over 60% of UAW non-citizen members and over 30% of CWA non-citizen members have deleted or refrained from posting on social media. Among those aware of the surveillance, these rates rose to over 80%/40%.The Register

The Government's Logic: National Security and Diplomatic Discretion

The State Department and the White House counter that it is a legitimate exercise of discretion to protect national security and diplomatic interests. Axios notes that an executive order issued shortly after the administration took office supported the surveillance, and The Verge reports that Secretary of State Rubio stated that "student visas should not be used for activist movements." Reuters also highlights the government's stance that "visas are not a guaranteed right for foreigners."Axios

Points of Contention in Court: Freedom of Expression & the "Linkage" to Residency Status

The complaint focuses on major points: (1) surveillance and actions based on viewpoint discrimination, (2) overly broad and arbitrary AI surveillance, and (3) the chilling effect leading to silence among both citizens and non-citizens. The structure of the government using online speech as a basis for sanctions under immigration law contains many uncharted territories in relation to "freedom of expression for foreigners" under the U.S. Constitution and the unions' freedom of association.Electronic Frontier Foundation

Social media surveillance has previously been questioned by civil society. The Brennan Center has visualized DHS's use of fake accounts and procurement of surveillance tools through FOIA, and Wired reports that ICE plans to build a 24/7 surveillance team. This lawsuit is a symbolic case seeking judicial review of these fragmented realities.Brennan Center for Justice

What Is Happening on the Ground: The "Silence" in Universities and Labor

The complaint particularly emphasizes the impact on the university community. Graduate students, researchers, and faculty, who depend on residency status, are deleting every post that "might be misunderstood" and avoiding sharing information about unions and social movements. While this may appear as mere self-defense, it erodes the substance of campus democracy and fundamental labor rights.Electronic Frontier Foundation

Reuters cites cases where green card holders were detained or sanctioned for expressing political views deemed anti-government or support for Palestine. While the truth and appropriateness of individual cases will be scrutinized in future hearings, at least the signs of "chilling" are consistently appearing across testimonies and surveys.Reuters

Reactions on Social Media: The "Visualization" of Social Division

The case has sparked intense reactions on social media.

• Support and Advocacy: State Department-affiliated accounts have promoted strict measures by stating that "visas are a privilege." Conservative media/influencers have also voiced approval for zero tolerance towards extreme or insulting posts.X (formerly Twitter)

• Criticism and Concerns: The EFF has spread the message on X and Threads that the government should stop "surveillance to enforce compliance with government views." TechCrunch's breaking news post has also been widely shared, sparking discussions among media outlets and journalists about "freedom of expression and the boundaries of immigration administration."X (formerly Twitter)Threads

• International Attention: Overseas media and journalist accounts have reported on the series of visa revocations related to the Charlie Kirk incident, expressing surprise at the linkage between speech and residency status.X (formerly Twitter)

Discussions on social media have converged on three points: (a) handling of insulting statements and extreme claims, (b) the extent of permissible government discretion, and (c) misinterpretation and misdetection by AI. Among these, concerns about overzealous enforcement due to AI misrecognition are strong.The Verge

Scenarios Leading to a Verdict: Injunctions, Disclosures, and the Redefinition of "Boundaries"

In the future, the plaintiffs are expected to seek an injunction and push for information disclosure on internal government regulations, AI model operational rules, handling of surveillance results, and evidence procedures. The court will likely carefully address issues such as (1) the legal basis and transparency of operations of the surveillance, (2) the existence of viewpoint discrimination, (3) proof of the chilling effect, and (4) the scope of discretion in immigration administration and the standards for constitutional review.Electronic Frontier Foundation

If the plaintiffs achieve a certain victory, the government may be compelled to undertake redesign of AI surveillance, clarification of disciplinary standards, and strengthening of appeal procedures. Conversely, if the government prevails, the trend of "residency status = visible code of conduct" may accelerate, and the space for expression in universities, research, and labor environments may become even more cautious. In any case, the lower court's decision is likely to have a long-lasting impact on the intersection of "digital expression and immigration policy" in the United States.

Practical Tips for Residents and Practitioners

• ##