The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a rule that would require most travelers from the 42 countries in the visa‑waiver program to turn over extensive social media and other personal data before entering the United States. The proposal, published in the Federal Register and open for 60 days of public comment, targets visitors who today can travel to the U.S. for business or tourism without a visa.
Under the draft rule, eligible travelers would be asked to provide up to five years of social media activity. The package of required information would also include email addresses used in the past 10 years, phone numbers, home addresses for immediate family members and, in some cases, technical data such as IP addresses and metadata embedded in digitally submitted photographs.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the measure is intended to carry out a January executive order aimed at protecting citizens from foreign actors who might commit terrorism, threaten national security, promote hateful ideology or misuse immigration channels for harmful purposes. DHS has not published a clear definition of what kinds of online behavior would be treated as a threat or disqualifying.
The notice also proposes changes to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). Today, visa‑waiver travelers pay $40 and complete an online ESTA form; the proposal would eliminate the current online application in favor of a mobile‑only platform.
Immigration advocates and legal scholars say the proposal expands vetting practices already used for visa applicants and raises unanswered questions about implementation. Marissa Montes, a professor at Loyola Law School and director of its Immigrant Justice Clinic, noted the government has long sought similar information but emphasized uncertainty about how and when social media would be reviewed—whether applicants must submit accounts in advance or officers request them at ports of entry—and how officers would carry out screening. She warned that entry screenings are often discretionary.
Critics point to the lack of explicit guidance about what content would be deemed harmful, saying that vagueness leaves broad room for officer interpretation. That, they argue, could allow political views or criticism of government policy to be treated as disqualifying. Travelers are being advised to be mindful not only of their own posts but also of content they have liked, commented on or reshared, since those actions could factor into decisions on admission or even lead to permanent bans. Social posts depicting casual drug use, firearms, or material perceived as supportive of certain political ideologies could invite scrutiny.
Experts also warn against deleting social accounts as a reflexive step; an account’s sudden absence can itself raise red flags for screening officers. As Montes put it, if information is publicly available somewhere online, authorities are likely to find it, so travelers should consider their online footprint carefully.