Show Caption

• The Coalition for Independent Technology Research sued the administration on March 9, alleging actions taken against noncitizens based on work in content moderation is unconstitutional censorship.
• The organization said the policy has already led to action against its noncitizen members and that others “quite reasonably fear they will be next on the list.”
• A Justice Department spokesperson called the lawsuit “baseless.” It said the department “respects the First Amendment” and rejected notions that such actions are unconstitutional.

A new federal lawsuit filed against President Donald Trump’s administration alleges that actions against noncitizens based on their work in fact-checking and content moderation is unconstitutional censorship. 

The Coalition for Independent Technology Research, a U.S.-based nonprofit made up of academics and others with a mission to “advance, defend and sustain the right to ethically study the impact of technology on society,” filed its complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 9.  

It accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi of “(adopting) a new policy of excluding and deporting noncitizens whose work involves combatting misinformation and disinformation, fact-checking, content moderation, trust and safety, or compliance.”  

The alleged policy is a “flagrant violation of the First Amendment,” the complaint said. It also accused the administration of having a “goal of punishing independent researchers, advocates and others who research and report on the major internet platforms.”  

A Justice Department spokesperson told USA TODAY the department “respects the First Amendment” and said federal law allowing the administration to remove individuals who pose a potential risk to the country’s interests is “fully consistent” with the Constitution. 

“DOJ will continue to defend against baseless lawsuits like this one that seek to weaken the Government’s authority to enforce federal law and make America less safe,” the spokesperson said.  

A State Department spokesperson echoed the administration’s previous statements in saying a “visa is a privilege, not a right.”

“The United States is under no obligation to admit or suffer the presence of individuals who subvert our laws and deny our citizens their Constitutional rights,” they said.

USA TODAY reached out to the Coalition for Independent Technology Research for comment. 

Coalition members affected by policy, group says

The complaint said the administration’s policy “punishes expressive activity for no legitimate governmental purpose.” 

It referenced Rubio’s December statement announcing action against five people he said “led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.” 

Two of those people led organizations that are members of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, the complaint said. 

“(The organization’s) other noncitizen members quite reasonably fear they will be next on the list if they continue their research and advocacy focused on the major internet platforms,” it said.  

The complaint also claimed the administration targeted those who criticized the more lenient content moderation policies on X under the ownership of Elon Musk, who briefly led the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency upon Trump’s return to office in 2025.   

Administration says visa is ‘a privilege, not a right’

The State Department in December implemented a visa policy that expanded online review requirements to include all H-1B visa applicants, who work in specialty occupations and are seeking temporary entry to the United States, as well as their dependents. The reviews were previously required for foreign students and exchange visitors.  

The public announcement did not provide details on what officials would be specifically looking for in the reviews or what types of content would be deemed disqualifying.  

Reuters had previously reported that H-1B application reviews would consider a person’s participation in “censorship,” including work in disinformation, content moderation and fact-checking, to be potentially disqualifying, according to a State Department cable obtained by the news organization.   

“If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible,” the cable said, according to Reuters. 

At the time the policy went into effect, a State Department spokesperson told USA TODAY the administration was “focused on protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process.”  

“A U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right,” they said. 

The March lawsuit rejected notions that such work amounts to censorship, instead calling it “private expressive activity that the First Amendment protects.” 

The complaint requested that the judge find the administration’s policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments and bar it from being implemented.  

BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com. 

USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.