Labor Unions Sue Trump Over AI Social Media Monitoring of Visa Holders

(UNITED STATES) Three national labor unions and a major digital rights group filed a federal lawsuit on October 16, 2025, challenging the government’s use of AI-driven social media monitoring aimed at non-citizens. The United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America, and American Federation of Teachers, joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, allege the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, and ICE violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act by tracking lawful residents and visa holders for their online speech. The case is pending in federal court in New York.

According to the complaint, agencies used artificial intelligence tools to scan and assess posts, with special focus on criticism of U.S. policies — including speech about Israel and support for Palestine. Plaintiffs say this led to censorship pressure affecting graduate students, academic workers, and union members, who feared their immigration status might be at risk. They argue the program punishes viewpoints the government dislikes and chills lawful speech.

Plaintiffs point to several alleged incidents to support their claim. They say the State Department revoked at least six visas after individuals posted about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Official accounts then shared examples of posts flagged as “offending,” unions say, sending a message that certain opinions could trigger immigration punishment. The complaint asks the court to:

1. Declare the surveillance unconstitutional.
2. Invalidate data collected through the program.
3. Impose a permanent ban on further monitoring based on viewpoint.

What the lawsuit says the government did

The suit describes a broad surveillance effort that expanded after President Trump’s January 2025 inauguration. It ties that expansion to new executive orders directing agencies to watch for “hateful ideology” and “anti-American attitudes.” Plaintiffs say those directives sparked more visa cancellations and removals, particularly after the September 2025 killing of Charlie Kirk, when online speech drew renewed scrutiny.

Union leaders and civil‑liberties lawyers report effects beyond the individuals whose visas were canceled. They cite widespread self-censorship across campuses and workplaces: people deleting accounts, avoiding posts about world events, and stepping back from union meetings or campaigns. The complaint calls this “viewpoint-based surveillance and intimidation,” arguing it suppresses dissent and harms academic freedom and labor organizing.

Free speech groups share similar concerns. The Knight First Amendment Institute has argued that pulling visas because of online speech amounts to censorship and clashes with constitutional protections. Plaintiffs assert that the First Amendment applies to non-citizens on U.S. soil and that government actions cannot target opinions, even when immigration status is involved. They also contend agencies failed to follow required rulemaking steps under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Government position and policy background

State Department officials defend the approach, saying the U.S. is not required to host foreigners who “commit acts of anti‑American, pro‑terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence,” and that they will continue revoking visas to protect public safety. The unions counter that their records show speech, not violence, triggered enforcement actions. The court will decide whether the program, as described, crosses constitutional lines.

Key policy context:

• Unions and digital‑rights groups trace the monitoring push to early 2025, when executive orders urged tighter screening.
• While the government has long reviewed public information for security threats, the complaint says today’s AI-driven social media monitoring goes further by flagging viewpoints and keywords tied to political speech.
• Plaintiffs argue that using AI at scale increases the likelihood of errors and magnifies bias — especially against communities that already face extra screening in immigration systems.

The case draws national attention because it sits at the intersection of immigration control, surveillance technology, and free expression. For temporary visa holders, advocates warn a single post could trigger denial of entry, visa cancellation, or removal proceedings. For permanent residents, plaintiffs say the program creates fear that speech could lead to more invasive checks or delays in benefits.

VisaVerge.com reports that unions and digital‑rights groups are seeking immediate court orders to:

• Stop data collection tied to viewpoint.
• Purge any records already gathered under the program.
• Obtain a clear ruling discouraging agencies from using automated tools to police political speech.

What visa holders should know now

The lawsuit is ongoing and no final ruling has been issued. Still, non‑citizens in the United States should be aware of potential immigration consequences tied to online activity while the case proceeds. Advocates recommend that people:

• Know that public posts can be reviewed by immigration officers.
• Save copies of posts and account activity if an issue arises so lawyers can assess context.
• Seek legal help before interviews or travel if they expect speech may be questioned.

There is no new filing step for people affected by the alleged monitoring, and no special form to submit. People who believe their visa was revoked due to online speech can discuss consular reconsideration options or re‑application paths with counsel where allowed. For official information about visa refusals and revocations, consult the U.S. Department of State resource: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visa-denials.html. This page explains how consular officers make decisions and which sections of law they apply.

Legal observers say the case’s outcome could set boundaries on how far agencies can go when reviewing speech by immigrants and visitors. Possible consequences include:

• If the court sides with plaintiffs: agencies could be barred from relying on tools that sort and flag posts based on viewpoint.
• If the court sides with the government: more speech‑related visa actions could follow, though programs would still need to avoid direct bans on protected expression.

Union leaders emphasize the human impacts. Academic workers and graduate students fear that a comment about foreign policy could derail a research career. Organizers report members skipping meetings or deleting years of posts. Faculty worry about damage to classroom debate. Families on temporary visas fear travel risks if routine reviews surface political content.

At the same time, some security officials argue social media can reveal real threats, and that immigration law gives consular officers broad power to revoke visas. The court’s challenge will be drawing a line between safety screening and viewpoint targeting. Plaintiffs assert the government crossed that line by focusing on specific political stances and publicly highlighting examples of “offending” speech.

What’s likely next

Lawyers expect disputes over records, including:

• What tools were used.
• How flags were set.
• How many enforcement actions followed.

Plaintiffs want the court to force disclosure, suppress data gathered unlawfully, and block further use of AI-driven tools to monitor speech. Government lawyers are expected to argue for deference in security judgments and the wide discretion of consular officers.

For now, the message from the complaint is clear: don’t punish people for what they say; punish crime. The unions and the EFF seek a court order that protects the line between speech and conduct, especially where the First Amendment applies. The government insists safety comes first and that it will continue to revoke visas when posts cross into support for violence or hate. The federal court in New York will decide where that line falls.