Labor unions sue Trump administration over social media surveillance
- Reference: 1760706472
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/10/17/labor_unions_surveillance_lawsuit/
- Source link:
Citing First Amendment violations, the [1]case is attempting to convince a federal court to end the program, which the EFF said has "silenced and frightened both citizens and noncitizens," and impacted the unions' ability to engage with members.
The program primarily targets individuals legally residing in the US, meaning they are entitled to constitutional protections, but do not have citizenship.
[2]
Nearly all US visa applicants are required to hand over all of the social media handles they have used in the past five years, per a policy update that [3]came into effect under the Trump administration, but was [4]proposed as early as the Obama administration.
[5]
[6]
Noncitizens on F, M, and J visas, which pertain to academic, nonacademic, vocational study and educational exchange programs, are also required to [7]make their social media accounts publicly viewable .
A combined effort between the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Department of Justice, called "Catch and Revoke," is using AI to monitor these visa holders' social media accounts for support of Hamas, Palestine, or antisemitism.
[8]
As the name suggests, any individual that expresses non-conforming or what has been described as anti-American views could be stripped of their visas and/or immigration benefits.
On September 30, in a case brought against state secretary Marco Rubio by the American Association of University Professors, a federal court in Massachusetts [9]ruled [PDF] that Trump's executive orders introducing these surveillance measures were unconstitutional.
The government is likely to appeal against the decision, but for now, immigration enforcement officers cannot deport or revoke visas based on protected speech alone.
[10]
The Center for Democracy and Technology [11]said : "Developments such as the AAUP decision and [Jimmy Kimmel's reinstatement by ABC] show that the Administration's attempts to suppress speech can be overcome so long as people and key institutions are willing to stand up, reject attempts to recharacterize dissent as terrorism or other unprotected activity, and reclaim free speech as a right for all, not just the favored few."
Other countries, including the UK, also engage in social media monitoring for the purposes of countering extremism or preserving national security. However, it generally only does this when there are known concerns about a given individual, rather than deploying a blanket screening of all immigrants.
The EFF said previously that although Trump's executive orders are designed to target student visa holders, because these individuals' networks likely include fellow students that are US citizens, the surveillance likely infringes their free speech rights also.
"Since taking power, the Trump administration has created a mass surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected speech by noncitizens lawfully present in the US," the EFF said.
"Using AI and other automated technologies, the program surveils the social media accounts of visa holders with the goal of identifying and punishing those who express viewpoints the government doesn't like.
[12]Don't cave to Euro censorship or backdoor demands, Uncle Sam warns US tech firms
[13]The UK Online Safety Act is about censorship, not safety
[14]The EFF is 35, but the battle to defend internet freedom is far from over
[15]Sacramento cops scoured energy records to target suspected weed growers, and the EFF has sued
"This has been paired with a public intimidation campaign, silencing not just noncitizens with immigration status, but also the families, coworkers, and friends with whom their lives are integrated."
The case, supported by the EFF, Muslim Advocates, and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, was filed on Thursday and includes accounts of how union members adjusted to the program.
The United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) said they are experiencing difficulty engaging with their members as a result of the program.
The [16]complaint [PDF] argues that the majority of union members have altered their online activity as a result, deleting posts and entire accounts out of fear they could be used to revoke their visas.
The EFF said that more than 60 percent of UAW noncitizen members and more than 30 percent of CWA noncitizen members had wiped their social media accounts to some degree, or refrained from sharing union content.
The figures rose to more than 80 percent and 40 percent respectively for those aware of the surveillance program, according to the campaigner's survey.
"Many members also reported altering their offline union activity in response to the program, including avoiding being publicly identified as part of the unions and reducing their participation in rallies and protests," it said.
"One member even said they declined to report a wage theft claim due to fears arising from the surveillance program."
The State Department highlighted earlier this week that its social media vetting of visa applicants also covers sentiments against Charlie Kirk.
It shared six examples of individuals expressing negative sentiments toward the assassinated right-wing influencer [17]on social media , saying "the United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans."
"Aliens who take advantage of America's hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed."
The Register contacted the department for a response to the lawsuit. ®
Updated to add at 1553 UTC, October 17
State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott told The Register : "The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk."
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/labor-unions-eff-sue-trump-administration-stop-surveillance-free-speech-online
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aPJoEzeeVv4nDt2Yx5NqjQAAAAI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2017/02/08/dhs_wants_enhanced_digital_vetting/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2016/09/21/want_to_visit_the_land_of_the_free_then_customs_will_demand_social_media_accounts/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPJoEzeeVv4nDt2Yx5NqjQAAAAI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aPJoEzeeVv4nDt2Yx5NqjQAAAAI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/25/us_student_visa_applicants_social_media_public/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPJoEzeeVv4nDt2Yx5NqjQAAAAI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.261.0.pdf
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aPJoEzeeVv4nDt2Yx5NqjQAAAAI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://cdt.org/insights/what-domestic-terrorism-and-non-citizen-speech-have-in-common/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/22/ftc_us_censorship/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/21/the_uk_online_safety_act/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/24/eff_turns_35/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/21/eff_sacramento_energy_lawsuit/
[16] https://www.eff.org/document/uaw-v-dos-complaint
[17] https://xcancel.com/StateDept/status/1978218112882266594#m
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
I'm not a US resident, but even I know what the 1st Amendment on free speech covers and your example is not covered.
Maybe you should go read it.
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
Also not a US resident, but I did say "after much pressure from the US government, which is what makes this a 1st amendment issue."
And that's what he was arguing in his legal case against the Biden administration.
So it potentially is kinda covered.
Maybe you should go read my post before commenting on it.
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
Government pressure is NOT the same thing. Yes you *could* argue they shouldn't be interfering, but ultimately it's down to the platforms. Let's not forget, those same platforms are kissing Trumps ring and once it swings back to the Democrats at some point, they will do exactly the same thing.
At ANY point the platforms could of gone NO, but they chose not to. There was absolutely NOTHING stopping him firing up his own server and repeating the same claims.
I know the law in the US is now just a political side show, but that's how it stands.
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
I'm just saying it has got something to do with the 1st amendment, if the government was interfering.
Sure, the platforms could have said NO... but then they would be in a position of "Nice platform you've got there, would be a shame if anything bad happened to it".
Arguing that you could set up your own platform is a pretty dumb argument. If all the platforms, with all the audience are suppressing free speech because of pressure from the government that's censorship. Go read some history. It's a bad path to go down. It doesn't end well. Twitter/X has become the town square. But you are free to go and sit in the corner of the park where no one else is nearby and make your argument?
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
Lies and misinformation are not free speech any more than the publication of child pornography.
Makes no difference who is spreading them, whether left, right, or over ever edge of an amplituhedron at once.
Being punted off twitter for spouting batshit nonsense is not suppression of free speech, anyone wanting to spread lies and misinformation is free to stand on the street corner and rant away, rights fully intact.
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
Please provide your address details so that I can pass on to Alex. He's been pretty successful in litigating against libel such as this in the past, and I'm sure would be quite happy to bankrupt you and add to his pile. Can you please qualify exactly what lies any misinformation you are talking about?
Anyway, it's just his opinion. That's how free speech works. We can then argue about it, and if someone is spreading lies and misinformation then people will eventually stop trusting them and go listen to someone else.
It does seem to me that if you are arguing for people who support Hamas, vs. someone who urged not to impose mandates for an new gene therapy... perhaps you are on the wrong side of history.
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
Hmm - not sure what was actually posted above is "batshit nonsense"...
Do Covid vaccines stop transmission? No they don't - he was right
Do Covid vaccines stop infection? No they don't - he was right
At best they reduce the severity of symptoms, but a prior infection would very likely also do that (which is why even though Covid is still around, it isn't killing people in any great numbers any more)
On the flip side, also not really a 1st amendment issue - more an Overton type issue - governments were initially terrified about the potential fallout and put the fear of god into the media, which in turn did the same to the general population, and nobody wanted to hear dissenting voices - Galileo would have been cancelled these days for postulating that the earth went round the sun...
Re: Does freedom of speech work both ways?
Do Covid vaccines stop transmission? No they don't - he was right
It's not quite so black and white.
In an individual, vaccination reduces the severity and duration of symptoms, and therefore reduces the probability of transmission. It isn't a binary yes/no situation.
In a group, vaccination of a large proportion of the members reduces the average level of transmission to below the level at which infection snowballs, so 10 people will infect fewer than 10 others, and over a couple of cycles transmission stops. That's how smallpox was essentially wiped out.
Does The First Amandment Apply to Non-US Citizens ?
I have seen clips of video where the officials in the US state that the constitution etc., does not apply to non-US people.
If this is the case, then it does mean you have to be careful on what you say about US people, if you want to visit the US.
If free speech does not apply to foreign people, then maybe the US should make this explicitly clear.
Re: Does The First Amandment Apply to Non-US Citizens ?
It does in principle according to the Supreme Court but in practice visa processors and border patrol have very wide latitude to reject non-citizens.
Re: Does The First Amandment Apply to Non-US Citizens ?
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees any non-citizen the right to enter the USA. They can reject you if they don't like the colour of your shoes. This is not a first amendment issue.
Re: Does The First Amandment Apply to Non-US Citizens ?
Again, in practice this is true. But the Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens have first amendment rights. Whether this applies to immigration has never been fully settled. The court has ruled in both directions numerous times, that non-citizens first amendment expressions can't be held against them, at the same time that the government has broad powers to deport people/deny entry. Though for the most part the latter cases have been in regard to unauthorized immigration.
Re: Does The First Amandment Apply to Non-US Citizens ?
>> If free speech does not apply to foreign people, then maybe the US should make this explicitly clear.
The USA with its BS "exceptional" ideas about itself is really nothing more than the Übermensch. Non-American practically equates to non-human.
Does freedom of speech work both ways?
Or do you only object when it's against your side?
Alex Berenson got shut down from Twitter* for saying ""It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it—at best—as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity". "
*after much pressure from the US government, which is what makes this a 1st amendment issue.
And I didn't hear any howls of outrage from The Reg back then about 1st amendment rights? Turns out what he was saying was a perfectly valid opinion.
I'm all for free speech. Almost a free speech absolutist. But surely it has to be allowed for people that you disagree with as well?
All those people who called for the suppression of free speech just a couple of years ago, are now upset because the boot is on the other foot.
How can you be so short sighted to think that the other guy isn't going to use those powers / norms to suppress people that you agree with.