The latest lawsuit filed by three major labor unions — the United Auto Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) — isn’t just a legal complaint. It’s a direct challenge to the Trump administration’s intensified scrutiny of foreign nationals’ political speech. And it sets up a high-stakes constitutional clash over whether non-citizens legally residing in the U.S. have First Amendment protections — and how far the federal government can go in monitoring their thoughts online.
At the heart of the suit is the Trump administration’s controversial visa revocation policy. Since returning to office in January, President Trump has resurrected and escalated efforts to vet visa holders based not just on security risks, but on ideology. The administration has used AI and other digital tools to monitor social media posts — and reportedly revoked the visas of at least six individuals following anti-American and anti-Israel comments after the high-profile murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last month.
Critics, including the unions now suing, argue that the policy amounts to a form of ideological surveillance and censorship. According to the complaint, the crackdown has already led to a chilling effect: green card holders and visa holders tied to union organizing have stepped back from activism, scrubbed their online posts, or pulled out of public union events altogether — fearing that expressing the “wrong” views could land them in detention or deportation proceedings.
The government’s response is unambiguous. In a statement, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the administration’s actions:
“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.”
That framing puts the administration on strong political footing — especially amid growing domestic fears about foreign-born extremism and campus unrest. But the legal implications are murkier. While the government has broad discretion over immigration policy, it does not have unlimited authority to suppress lawful expression, particularly when it affects individuals living and working in the U.S. lawfully. The question the courts must now answer: Where is the line between national security and protected speech?
The unions argue that the line has already been crossed. In their view, Trump’s executive order — signed on Day One of his return — sets a dangerously vague standard: visa holders must not “bear hostile attitudes” toward American institutions or founding principles. That language, they claim, is being used to silence criticism of the government, particularly on contentious topics like the U.S.–Israel alliance and support for Palestinians.
One of the most high-profile examples cited in the complaint is Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder detained for months after participating in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. Though eventually released, Khalil’s case, the unions say, sent a clear signal to thousands of other legal residents: political expression now comes with immigration risk.
This isn’t just about individual cases. The unions claim that the administration’s tactics are disrupting their entire organizing apparatus — making it harder to recruit members, lead public campaigns, and advocate on behalf of immigrant workers. In short, they say, the government’s surveillance is neutering their political voice.
Yet, the Trump administration insists that what it’s doing is both lawful and necessary. Officials argue that immigration is a privilege, not a right — and that the U.S. has every right to deny entry or residency to foreign nationals who promote hate or sympathize with extremist ideologies. With anti-American sentiment and violent threats increasingly spread online, the administration views proactive monitoring of social media as a tool of modern national defense.
