A consortium of independent tech researchers aims to prevent the enforcement of a State Department policy. The Trump administration is striving to restrict entry of certain social media moderation advocates into the U.S. On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg reviewed arguments in a lawsuit involving the nonprofit Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other Trump administration officials. The dispute centers on a policy permitting visa restrictions on foreign officials who insist that American tech companies implement global content moderation rules. CITR seeks a preliminary injunction to halt the policy, which the State Department cited when it penalized five individuals involved in online disinformation, including a former EU official responsible for enforcing digital services regulations. CITR argues this policy will suppress research into online issues like content moderation.
Announced last May, the policy led to sanctions in December against individuals who facilitated censorship by foreign states. Among those targeted was former EU official Thierry Breton, as well as officials from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Global Disinformation Index (GDI)—organizations under the CITR umbrella. Imran Ahmed, CEO of CCDH, who was sanctioned, holds lawful permanent U.S. residency, according to CITR.
CITR insists the policy impacts scholars’ freedom of expression and publication. In court statements, researchers described avoiding public discussions of work that might compromise their visa status, and delaying research publications related to international travel. CITR executive director Brandi Geurkink commented on the negative impact of the policy after the hearing.
The government’s defense is based on a narrow interpretation of the policy. Attorney Zack Lindsey contended it targets foreign government personnel conduct, hence independent researchers should not be concerned. Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute representing CITR, argued there’s no proof individuals like Ahmed are collaborating with foreign governments. When Judge Boasberg questioned Lindsey on this point, Lindsey maintained Ahmed wasn’t targeted by the policy, despite references made by Rubio in a memo.
Lindsey did not clearly define what constitutes working with a foreign government, an ambiguity DeCell suggests is intentional. The State Department seeks to maintain broad visa restriction rights irrespective of policy specifics.
The injunction may depend partly on technicalities like CITR’s standing to file the lawsuit. However, Boasberg challenged another major government claim: that the judiciary can only assess policy constitutionality within individual deportation cases. He questioned if any policy, no matter how unreasonable, could avoid constitutional scrutiny. A decision on stopping the policy to avert irreparable harm is forthcoming. “I will do my best to get it all figured out,” Boasberg stated.