State Department’s decision to censor speech and deny prominent information integrity researchers visas “undermines our democracy”

In response to the news that the State Department is denying visas to Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) CEO Imran Ahmed and four other information integrity researchers, and that a New York federal district court judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from detaining or deporting Ahmed, Issue One Vice President of Advocacy Alix Fraser offered the following statement:

“The State Department’s decision to deny visas to prominent information integrity advocates undermines our democracy. These experts protect free expression, bring transparency to the  technology sector, and hold powerful companies accountable at a moment when such oversight is more critical than ever. The work of advocates like Imran Ahmed sits at the intersection of child online safety, national security, and information integrity. By making this work harder, the State Department makes it easier for foreign adversaries to pollute our online information environment, endanger children, and deepen polarization.

“As these experts face attacks, it is imperative that lawmakers and civil society step up to defend their independent work. Tech companies are trying to silence advocates and their research because they don’t like the facts they present. Last-minute efforts to deport and remove these experts under the guise of national security not only weaken free speech but also erode the rule of law.”

Background

As part of a pattern by the current administration of suppressing independent analysis and intimidating online safety researchers, the State Department updated its rules and procedures in December to deny H1-B visas to information integrity researchers, content moderators, trust and safety professionals, fact-checkers, and civil society experts who track foreign interference, extremism, and coordinated online manipulation. In response, Issue One submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to ask for internal communications, enforcement guidance, and the criteria used to determine whether an individual will face additional scrutiny because of their work on information integrity. The goal was to promote transparency, signal to the Trump administration that the online safety research community is watching, create a permanent public record, and protect those that do this critical work.