U.S. Revokes Visas of Foreign Nationals Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Death: Free Speech Debate Intensifies
Washington, D.C. — October 15, 2025
In a forceful signal on immigration enforcement and public speech, the U.S. Department of State announced that it has revoked the visas of six foreign nationals following social media posts celebrating or excusing the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.
The agency, posting on X (formerly Twitter), stated:
“The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans. The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
Who Were Affected, and What They Posted
The six individuals—whose identities remain undisclosed—hail from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay, and South Africa.
Among the shared screenshots cited by the State Department:
An Argentine national allegedly said that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” and “deserves to burn in hell.”
A German account reportedly claimed, “When fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”
A Brazilian user was quoted asserting Kirk “died too late” and accusing him of promoting “a Nazi rally.”
A Mexican poster purportedly wrote, “Kirk died being a racist, he died being a misogynist… there are people who deserve to die.”
A South African comment reportedly mocked Americans mourning Kirk, alleging he had been used to “astroturf a white nationalist movement.”
A Paraguayan message allegedly said, “Charlie Kirk was a son of a b---- and he died by his own rules.”
Each screenshot in the State Department post concluded with “Visa revoked.”
The department did not directly confirm whether these individuals were inside or outside the U.S. at the time of revocation, or which visa categories they held.
Policy Context: Social Media Vetting & Visa Control
This latest move builds on a broader push by the Trump administration to scrutinize foreign nationals’ online speech. Since 2019, visa applicants have been required to provide social media history; in 2025, the rules were tightened to demand public account access for student visa candidates, allowing more intensive vetting.
Earlier this year, reports emerged that the U.S. would use Artificial intelligence to flag foreign students for visa revocations linked to pro-Palestinian content—part of a controversial “catch and revoke” strategy targeting speech seen as supportive of Hamas.
The Kirk-related visa actions echo that approach, illustrating how speech and political commentary are increasingly intertwined with immigration enforcement.
Legal Questions & Free Speech Implications
Civil liberties advocates argue that revoking visas based on speech—especially speech critical of political figures or policies—raises First Amendment and due process concerns, even for non-citizens present in the
But U.S. law gives the executive branch broad discretion over visa revocation. In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (2024), the Supreme Court confirmed that a visa petition revocation falls under discretionary authority and is generally not subject to judicial review.
Thus, while critics argue this is a slippery slope toward censorship and selective targeting, legal recourse for affected individuals is limited.
Why This Matters Now: Political Symbolism, Security, and Global Reactions
Symbolic message: The revocations occur on the same day former President Donald Trump posthumously awarded Charlie Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, amplifying the political symbolism of the gesture.
Trend of visa leverage: These actions align with a broader use of visa policy as diplomatic leverage—such as recent cancellations targeting Mexican officials and others whose conduct is deemed contrary to U.S. interests.
Backlash and reputation risk: Civil rights groups and media voices warn this strategy risks eroding press freedom, undermining free expression norms, and damaging the U.S.’s global image as a defender of individual rights.
Precedent for enforcement: Observers are watching to see whether further revocations follow for foreign nationals who make inflammatory or derogatory remarks about American individuals or policies.