CITR v. Rubio

On March 9, 2026, Protect Democracy, with co-counsel Knight First Amendment Institute, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), challenging a new U.S. immigration policy that targets technology researchers, advocates, and trust and safety professionals — who study, report on, or work to improve the online information environment — for visa denials, detention, and deportation.

Background

Background

Over the course of 2025, the second Trump administration developed and began enforcing a new immigration policy aimed at people working in fields dedicated to online safety.

On May 28, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on social media that the State Department would implement “a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans.” Seven months later, on December 2, 2025, the State Department reportedly directed employees to scrutinize visa applicants for work related to online safety and to find applicants ineligible if they have worked in fields including trust and safety, fact-checking, content moderation, and compliance. 

On December 23, 2025, Secretary Rubio announced that five individuals accused of leading efforts to “censor” American viewpoints would be subject to immigration consequences, including Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate and former EU Commissioner Thierry Bretton. Invoking the Immigration and Nationality Act’s foreign policy provision, Secretary Rubio asserted that their presence could cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” opening the door to removal proceedings and signalling the Department was “ready and willing to expand” its list of impacted individuals.

Together, these actions represent a campaign to retaliate against those who have been working to make the internet safer. They establish an immigration regime that conditions presence in the U.S. on avoiding work the administration disfavors, including research, advocacy, and platform governance activities that are lawful and constitutionally protected.

Why this matters

The Trump administration is engaged in a relentless offensive to dictate the terms of the online information environment and to target the people who work to keep it safe.

For years, Trump and his allies have pressured, threatened, and sought to punish platforms for content decisions they oppose — particularly decisions related to election misinformation and fact-checking. That campaign has now expanded into an attack on researchers, journalists, and advocates who document how information spreads online, and trust and safety professionals who keep platform users safe from online harms. This includes those responsible for tech platforms’ safety policies and compliance — people who work to keep online spaces free of child sexual abuse material, fraud, human trafficking, and more. Retaliating against these professionals for their lawful viewpoints and professional work not only dismantles the systems designed to protect the integrity and safety of the digital public square, but violates the First Amendment. 

The consequences of the administration’s weaponization of immigration policy extend further. The internet is not just where we communicate; it is the raw material that informs and teaches the AI systems that increasingly shape how we search, write, and learn. If fact-checkers and trust and safety professionals are punished for doing their jobs, the distortion of our information ecosystem will not remain confined to social media feeds. 

Immigration discretion is not unlimited, and it cannot be used to weaponize the visa system against people based on their viewpoints, their research, or their efforts to make the information ecosystem safer and more transparent. We are challenging this policy on behalf of CITR, and in partnership with Knight First Amendment Institute, as an unconstitutional attack on free expression and a dangerous expansion of executive power. At stake are not only the rights of those directly targeted, but also the integrity of our information environment and the democratic norms that depend on unfettered inquiry and open debate. 

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

• Coalition for Independent Technology Research

Defendants

Defendants

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio
• DHS Secretary Kristi Noem
• Attorney General Pamela Bondi

Case documents