Visas Revoked for Foreigners Who Allegedly Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Assassination, Sparking Legal Debate in the U.S.

• Controversy Over Visa Revocation in the US
• Case Linked to Charlie Kirk
• Debate on Freedom of Expression

The US Department of State announced the revocation of visas for at least six individuals who allegedly celebrated publicly the assassination of Charlie Kirk—a move that has raised questions about its legality under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

In a post published Tuesday on X, coinciding with Kirk’s birthday, the agency shared examples of foreign nationals whose visas were reportedly canceled due to social media comments in which they allegedly celebrated the conservative activist’s death.

The Department of State stated that these are just “some” of the affected individuals and that it will continue identifying visa holders who “celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

State Department Intensifies Social Media Monitoring

The Department of State claims to have revoked visas from people who allegedly “celebrated” Charlie Kirk’s assassination. https://t.co/aPaiBeA9kV

— CNN en Español (@CNNEE) October 15, 2025

The announcement included recent statements from senior officials confirming the scope of the actions taken.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated last month that the agency “has most certainly been denying visas” to individuals who have publicly celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death.

Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said he instructed consular officers to monitor social media for posts that “praised, justified, or downplayed” Kirk’s killing.

Visa Revocation in the US for Comments on Kirk’s Assassination

National | Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau stated that he had instructed consular officials to monitor comments on social media.

👉 https://t.co/gPvwM5e0WY pic.twitter.com/7QBYIWAwEc

— Noticias Univision San Diego – Tijuana (@UnivisionSD) October 15, 2025

This approach has generated concerns because it remains unclear how many personnel are assigned to these digital monitoring tasks or what specific criteria are being used to identify sanctionable posts.

You may also like: ICE Fines Legal Resident in Chicago for Not Carrying Green Card

The Department of State has also not disclosed how many visas have been revoked so far or whether the list released on Tuesday represents all the cases or just a portion.

CNN reported that it requested further details from the Department of State about these actions, but no additional clarifications have yet been provided.

Examples of Comments on Charlie Kirk’s Death Cited by the Department of State

Among the examples published by the Department of State on Tuesday were:

• An Argentine citizen who allegedly wrote on social media that Kirk “dedicated his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic rhetoric” and deserved to burn in hell.
• A South African citizen who reportedly “mocked Americans mourning Kirk’s death,” saying that “it hurts them that the racist rally ended in an attempt at martyrdom,” claiming Kirk “was used to promote a disorganized white nationalist movement.”
• Likewise, a Paraguayan citizen allegedly posted, “Charlie Kirk was a son of a b**** and died by his own rules.”

In addition to these cases, the Department of State said it also revoked the visas of a Mexican, a Brazilian, and a German citizen, though it did not provide details about their posts or identities.

Growing Questions About Legal Implications

The visa revocation in the US linked to online expressions has sparked doubts about its legality and its compatibility with the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech within the country.

However, the First Amendment applies to citizens and residents within US territory, while the federal government holds broad discretion over immigration matters, including issuing and revoking visas for foreign nationals.

The measures announced could open a new debate on how far the United States can go in sanctioning opinions expressed abroad and whether it can use ideological criteria to deny entry to the country.

For now, the Department of State maintains that its decisions are based on national security and foreign policy concerns.

It remains to be seen whether these measures will lead to legal challenges or diplomatic pressure from other governments whose citizens are affected.