US revokes more than 300,000 visas in second Trump term, prompting rights‑group criticism

Scale of the revocations The US State Department announced on Tuesday that more than 300,000 visas have been revoked since President Donald Trump began his second term in January 2025. The figure, disclosed by spokesperson Tommy Pigott, marks a sharp increase from the roughly 175,000 cancellations reported in an August update. Pigott said the administration’s actions represent the fastest rate of visa revocations in US history.

Government rationale According to the State Department, the revocations target foreign nationals who are alleged to have broken US law, committed fraud, or posed a threat to national security. The administration maintains a "zero‑tolerance" stance toward such violations and frames the broader immigration crackdown as essential for domestic security and the enforcement of immigration laws.

Opposition and legal concerns Human‑rights organisations have contested the policy, contending that it erodes due‑process protections and free‑speech rights. Critics point to a perceived pattern of targeting ethnic minorities and political dissenters, arguing that the sweeping nature of the revocations creates an unsafe environment for immigrant communities. The groups also allege that the policy may amount to racial profiling.

Notable cases drawing scrutiny Among the revocations that have attracted particular attention are those involving foreign nationals who participated in pro‑Palestinian demonstrations against Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Rights advocates also highlight cases where visas were cancelled because applicants expressed opinions on social media about the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. Both sets of cases have been cited as examples of the administration using national‑security arguments to suppress criticism.

Wider immigration context The visa cancellations form part of a broader immigration enforcement strategy that includes heightened deportation efforts and stricter screening of social‑media activity for visa applicants. While the administration argues that these measures are necessary to protect the nation, the ongoing debate underscores a tension between security objectives and civil‑rights protections.

The State Department’s latest data underscores the scale of the current crackdown, while the response from advocacy groups suggests that the policy’s long‑term legal and social implications remain contested.