I was reading Erik Larson’s In the Garden of Beasts when I came across the line: “This isn’t America and you can’t say all the things you think,” said by an officer to a United States ambassador’s daughter in Nazi Germany.
I warn against drawing too many comparisons between that time and place and our current world, as that is a slippery slope toward false extrapolations. However, the line did remind me of the new U.S. initiative to screen student visa applicants’ social media and the implications this has for the quality of American education and the future of student migrations.
A recent cable signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed the department’s officers to “identify applicants who bear hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.” It stipulated that an applicant’s social media account must remain public, or else this could reflect “evasiveness or otherwise call into question the applicant’s credibility.” Consular officers should also consider the likelihood of applicants with a history of political activism to continue such activities and whether such actions are consistent with the student visa they seek.
For students, these are not necessarily huge concerns. There is already a common practice of keeping an official social media account and a private one—maybe even a couple—under a pseudonym and a non-identifying profile picture. This is not a foolproof way to stay private—U.S. consular officers are also allowed to screen applicants through online databases, including LexisNexis—but it does make it harder for the overburdened and downsized U.S. State Department to screen the over 1 million international students coming to the U.S. each year.
What is concerning is the effect this policy would have on the culture of academia in the U.S. Judging student visa applications based on whether students are likely to voice dissent or be politically active would hamper the freedom of speech and assembly protected in the U.S. Constitution. It could even promote a culture where students are hesitant to engage with their peers and professors on political and social issues out of fear of having their visas revoked. This includes not contributing to outside of classroom discussions, shying away from campus involvement, and not bringing new ideas to their courses.
A classroom where students do not feel free to share their perspectives, especially in discussion-based courses common in humanities and social sciences, undermines the university as a place of learning, inquiry, and expression. It would fail to provide cultural exchange and a well-rounded education to both domestic and international students. Contrary to the quote in Larson’s book, this America would not be a place where you can say all the things you think.
Prospective students may not wish to study where they feel their freedoms and research will be limited altogether, an issue that has been a thorn for Chinese officials seeking to attract foreign students. The number of international students in the U.S. has already dropped by 11.3 percent as of March 2025, and we may continue to see these numbers decline as data begin to reflect policies under the Trump administration. This would not only be detrimental to universities—which count on international students for course enrollments, revenue, and contributions to research and development—but the U.S. economy would also feel the impact. When students arrive, their day-to-day consumption contributes $43.8 billion to the economy and supports more than 378,000 jobs.
While the prestige of American universities is still highly influential and could offset some of the drawbacks of studying in an increasingly restrictive learning environment, the U.S. is not the only country with prestigious and high-quality institutions. Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, and France are also top destinations for international students due to their esteemed programs. Courses taught in English are a major incentive, and such programs have been on the rise globally, giving international students more choices in their study destinations. Last year, Poland, Mexico, New Zealand, and Chile saw significant growth in their international student populations.
As the U.S. steps back from its role as a leader in global education, this opens the door for other countries to amplify their own influence in the minds of aspiring youth. They can attract students and reap the economic and intellectual benefits by supporting English-taught programs, easing visa attainment, and offering future employment opportunities.
If the U.S. does not want to see talent flock elsewhere—and lose the economic and cultural benefits that international students bring—it must reconsider the expectations it signals during the visa application process and the educational freedoms, or lack thereof, that it is promoting.
