The United States is once again tightening the conditions for entering the country, adding a new chapter to a growing list of measures that critics say are increasingly intrusive.
According to an official notice from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Trump administration is moving forward with a proposal that would require visa-exempt foreign travelers to submit their social-media histories from the past five years before being allowed to enter U.S. territory.
A new layer of screening raises global concerns about privacy, discrimination, and the true purpose behind the policy
The measure applies to citizens of 42 countries covered by the Visa Waiver Program, which allows visitors from much of Europe, as well as places such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Israel, and Qatar to stay in the United States for up to 90 days without a visa. These travelers use the Electronic Travel Authorization System (ESTA), and it is precisely that group that would be affected by the new screening rules.
President Trump defended the measure during a press briefing at the White House, stating, “We just want people to come here and be safe. We want to make sure we do not allow the wrong people into our country.” His words sparked immediate controversy, with critics across the world describing the stance as subjective, discriminatory, and inconsistent with American values of openness and freedom.
The proposal has triggered a broader debate about whether this is truly the most effective way to protect the United States from terrorists, criminals, or other national-security threats — or whether it marks another escalation in the country’s increasingly aggressive posture toward immigrants and international travelers.
A deepening push for digital surveillance: How far is the US willing to go?
The idea of screening social-media profiles is not entirely new, but the scope of this proposal goes dramatically further than anything previously attempted. In June, the U.S. Department of State indicated that some categories of visa applicants would be required to make their social-media profiles public. Now, the administration aims to extend similar requirements to travelers who were historically considered low-risk and who had previously enjoyed a streamlined entry process.
For many digital-rights advocates, the implications are alarming. Requiring travelers to reveal years of personal online activity — opinions, photos, political commentary, private conversations, and interactions — could be seen as an abuse of state power and a violation of the right to privacy and freedom of speech. The policy would effectively force individuals to choose between entering the United States and surrendering control over a deeply personal aspect of their lives.
There is also little clarity about how the information would be analyzed, who would have access to it, and how long it would be stored. Could a joke, a sarcastic comment, or a political post made years ago lead to the denial of entry? Would travelers be judged based on who they follow, what they like, or the tone of their conversations? Without transparent standards, experts warn that the risk of arbitrary decisions and discriminatory outcomes is extremely high.
Beyond privacy concerns, the policy also raises technical questions. Social-media algorithms often lack context and struggle to interpret cultural nuances, slang, irony, and multilingual communication. In practice, that means the screening process could misinterpret harmless content, placing travelers at risk of being unfairly flagged.
Will this strain US relations ahead of the 2026 World Cup?
The proposal arrives at a delicate moment. The United States, along with Mexico and Canada, is preparing to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which is expected to bring millions of international visitors to North America. For many countries participating in the tournament, swift and uncomplicated entry into the United States is essential for athletes, staff, journalists, and fans alike.
If implemented, the social-media requirement could slow down entry processes and create uncertainty for travelers who may feel uncomfortable disclosing personal digital information. Tourism experts warn that such policies could discourage visitors and complicate international travel logistics at a time when global mobility will be critical.
Diplomatically, several governments have already signaled concerns about the direction U.S. immigration and border policies have taken in recent years. Countries in Europe, many of which are part of the Visa Waiver Program, may view the proposal as disproportionate and incompatible with reciprocal standards of privacy. Some analysts argue that this measure could eventually trigger policy retaliation or pressure Washington to revise certain aspects of its approach.
The question many are asking is: What does the Trump administration ultimately seek to accomplish with this measure? Official statements stress national security, but critics believe the policy reflects a broader political strategy aimed at projecting toughness on immigration and appealing to domestic voters who support stricter border controls.
Others argue that the measure fits into a global trend of digital surveillance in which governments increasingly treat online behavior as an extension of physical identity.
Public comments, legal challenges, and the future of privacy under Trump’s administration
The proposal is currently open for public comment until Feb. 9, 2026, allowing U.S. citizens to express support or concerns about the measure. While this process is a standard part of U.S. regulatory development, it also reveals the level of national debate expected to unfold. Civil-rights organizations, privacy experts, immigrant-rights advocates, and tech specialists are preparing to weigh in, and potential legal challenges could arise if the administration attempts to implement the rule without addressing constitutional questions.
The core of the controversy is not merely operational; it’s philosophical. How much access should a government have to the private digital lives of people who are not even its citizens? Does reviewing five years of online activity actually improve national security, or does it simply create more data with limited value? And perhaps most importantly: What message does the United States send to the world when it demands such far-reaching personal disclosures?
For now, the proposal has heightened anxieties among travelers and governments alike. The United States remains one of the most visited countries in the world, and policies that complicate the entry process risk undermining its global reputation and economic interests. Yet the administration appears determined to defend its approach as necessary and justified.
What is clear is that the debate will not end soon. As digital life becomes increasingly intertwined with cross-border movement, the line between privacy and security will continue to blur, and governments will face growing pressure to balance both. The United States is now at the center of that conversation, and the outcome of this proposal may shape international travel norms for years to come.