The U.S. State Department has revoked the visas of six foreign nationals, citing their social media posts mocking or celebrating the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
According to the State Department, the six individuals hailed from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay, and South Africa. Their identities were not disclosed.
The revocations were based on social media posts that the U.S. government deemed to have “celebrated,” “made light of,” or otherwise disrespected the killing of Kirk.
One example cited by the U.S. was a German-language post that read, “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain.” Another was from an Argentine user accusing Kirk of “spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
The action comes on the same day President Donald Trump posthumously awarded Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at a university event in Utah earlier this month.
Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed the visa revocations as part of a broader push to defend U.S. sovereignty and respond to what they consider violations of American hospitality. In a statement, the State Department said: “Aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed.”
This is not the first time the administration has used social media commentary as a trigger for immigration consequences. The State Department has in recent months begun more aggressively vetting visa holders’ social media histories—and in some cases revoking or denying visas based on posts deemed objectionable.
Civil liberties and free-speech advocates have sharply criticized the move. They argue that even noncitizens in the U.S. retain certain speech protections and that revoking visas over political or critical commentary sets a dangerous precedent.
Legal scholars point out that while the U.S. has broad authority to deny entry to foreigners, the question of whether it can revoke visas of those already admitted—or sanction speech—remains legally unsettled.
Of particular note is that one of the affected nationals is from South Africa, highlighting potential diplomatic tensions between Washington and African nations over freedom of expression and immigration policy.
The move could reverberate for Africans residing, studying, or traveling in the U.S., especially those active online. It raises new uncertainties about how U.S. authorities might interpret or act on critical remarks made abroad.
The State Department has asserted that it is continuing to identify visa holders whose social media commentary might violate its newly framed standards.
Meanwhile, civil rights organizations may challenge these revocations in court on constitutional or international free speech grounds. The debate over the balance between immigration control and expression is likely to intensify in the coming days.
