The Trump administration is defending the right to prevent experts from overseeing content in the US
The Trump administration is fighting for the right to keep certain communications lawyers out of the US.
On Wednesday, US District Court Judge James Boasberg heard arguments in a case between the non-profit organization Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other Trump administration officials. The case concerns a policy that allows for visa restrictions on foreign officials who “want American technology platforms to adopt global content moderation policies.” CITR opposes the first order banning the policy, which the State Department has already cited when it sanctioned five people working on issues of information dissemination on the Internet, including a former European official who led the enforcement of digital services laws. It says allowing the policy to continue will silence people researching topics such as content moderation and misinformation online.
The policy in question was announced in May of last year, and the State Department issued the sanctions in December, saying its goals were to “enhance the scrutiny of foreign intelligence.” The group included former EU official Thierry Breton, and executives from the Center for Counting Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), both CITR members. CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed, who was the target of the sanctions, is a full-time legal US citizen, according to CITR.
“One of the worst parts about the healing effect is that all the research is not possible”
CITR says the policy harms the ability of scholars to speak and publish freely. In declarations to the court, the researchers described their reluctance to publicly discuss the work because they feared it might threaten their visa status, or delay the publication of some research before an international trip. “One of the worst parts about the cold impact is all the research that’s not going to happen,” CITR executive director Brandi Geurkink said at a press conference after the hearing.
Much of the government’s defense depends on reading the policy too narrowly. Attorney Zack Lindsey said it only regulates the conduct of people working for foreign governments, so independent researchers have nothing to fear. Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of CITR, asserted that there is no statistical evidence that Ahmed is cooperating with a foreign government. If the policy is implemented without the conditions in mind, Boasberg asked Lindsey, “doesn’t that blow up your argument?” Lindsey insisted to Ahmed it wasn’t like that is actually targeted under the policy, despite Rubio referring to it in a memo in which he advised Ahmed was being deported — and argued that the details of any targets do not undermine the State Department’s greater authority.
All in all, Lindsey has left what it means to work with a foreign government vaguely — vagueness that, DeCell says, “seems to be part of the point.” The State Department wants to maintain a broad right to restrict visas, without specifying a specific policy.
This order may depend partly on technical questions such as whether CITR has grounds to sue. But Boasberg questioned the government’s other main claim: that the court can only decide whether the policy is constitutional in the case of a legal challenge by a visa holder facing deportation. “No matter how stupid the policy that was announced was, there wouldn’t be a constitutional challenge?” he asked thoughtfully. You will soon decide whether the policy should be canceled to prevent irreparable damage. “I will do my best to make everything clear,” said Boasberg.
