Key facts
- A U.S. District Judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking a Trump administration policy that targeted non-citizens working in content moderation and disinformation research.
- The policy could have led to visa denials and deportations for researchers whose work was deemed to suppress U.S. speech or manipulate public opinion.
- Judge James Boasberg ruled that the policy likely violated the First Amendment by censoring researchers based on their viewpoints.
- The Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) argued the policy chilled research, advocacy, and travel.
- The State Department failed to prove that targeted researchers had connections to foreign powers attempting to censor Americans.
A U.S. District Judge has blocked a Trump administration policy that sought to deny visas and deport non-citizens working in content moderation, disinformation research, and fact-checking. Judge James Boasberg issued a preliminary injunction, stating that the policy, as enforced, likely violated the First Amendment by censoring researchers based on their viewpoints.
The Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) had sued to reverse the policy, arguing it chilled research, advocacy, and travel. The State Department had argued that individuals working in these fields were potentially aiding foreign adversaries in manipulating public opinion by suppressing U.S. speech. However, the court found that the State Department failed to prove that any of the targeted researchers had connections to foreign powers attempting to censor Americans or manipulate U.S. public debate.
Judge Boasberg noted that the policy's enforcement had "no clear stopping point" and could reasonably place the immigration status of trust-and-safety workers, researchers, and compliance employees at risk simply for working in content moderation. He also pointed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat to expand the list of targeted researchers. The ruling was celebrated by researchers who feared deportation, with some suggesting that the policy benefited social media companies by targeting those who exposed risks on their platforms.