A new criterion has emerged for those seeking entry to the United States: their public stance on the death of Charlie Kirk.
In the two weeks following Mr. Kirk’s killing, U.S. officials initiated a public call for assistance in identifying individuals who have publicly celebrated or mocked his death. The stated consequence for such remarks is the forfeiture of the right to enter the United States.
This policy has already put dozens of individuals at risk of being barred from the country, including a Brazilian congressman, Mexican political commentators, and a South African journalist, according to recent social media statements from a high-ranking State Department official.
Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear: “If you are here on a visa and cheering on the public assassination of a political figure, prepare to be deported. You are not welcome in this country.”
This initiative is part of the broader campaign by the Trump administration to retaliate against anyone perceived to have downplayed, condoned, or unfairly attributed blame for Mr. Kirk’s murder. A notable example involved Disney executives temporarily suspending Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show following conservative backlash over his comments regarding the shooting.
However, this policy also highlights another instance where the administration appears to be employing ideology as a deciding factor for who can visit, work, and reside in the United States.
Ricardo Zúñiga, a former senior State Department official who served under five presidents, including Mr. Trump, expressed his concern: “This is highly unusual. Would the same rules apply to someone who ridiculed attacks on opponents of the administration?”
Historically, U.S. officials have focused on whether visa applicants pose a danger or have a criminal record. However, under Mr. Trump, scrutiny has extended to individuals’ online statements.
In January, Mr. Trump banned foreigners with “hostile attitudes” toward American “citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles.” In March, Mr. Rubio instructed his staff to examine student visa applicants’ online posts for signs of antisemitism. By June, the State Department mandated that many visa applicants make their social media content public. And in July, an official testified in court that online criticism of the war in Gaza could negatively impact applicants.
“They’re attempting to redefine the boundaries of acceptable speech,” Mr. Zúñiga commented. “It’s a clear message: They prefer individuals who are ideologically aligned to visit the United States.”
The State Department has not yet responded to requests for comments on this matter.
While a 1952 law previously prohibited members of Communist or other totalitarian parties from immigrating to the U.S., the State Department clarified in 2020 that numerous exceptions existed, and it did not apply to short-term visitors.
The campaign to identify foreign critics of Mr. Kirk is spearheaded by Christopher Landau, the State Department’s second-highest official and a former ambassador to Mexico. On September 11, the day after Mr. Kirk’s death, Mr. Landau publicly urged his followers on X to submit instances of individuals “praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event.”
Since then, users have deluged his account with video snippets and screenshots containing crude remarks, attempts to justify the shooting, and criticisms directed at Mr. Kirk and his hard-right political views.
In over 50 instances, Mr. Landau has responded with images depicting himself as a superhero, “El Quitavisas” or “The Visa Yanker” in Spanish. One such image features a bat signal adorned with the U.S. government seal. Another portrays a cartoon rendering of Mr. Landau obliterating a visa with lasers emitted from his eyes.
The exact number of individuals cited in his posts who have had their visas revoked, or even possessed visas, remains unconfirmed. The State Department typically refrains from discussing individual cases.
In one particular video, Jorge Roberto Avilés, a prominent Mexican commentator known as Callo de Hacha, asserted that Mr. Kirk shared “the same message as Hitler.” Mr. Landau countered with a “Quitavisas” image, adding, “How disgusting it is to justify the murder of a person who thinks differently simply by calling him Hitler.”
In a separate incident, Redi Tlhabi, a South African journalist, expressed empathy for Mr. Kirk’s family but not for Mr. Kirk himself, stating that “he believed gun-related deaths were acceptable and a small price to pay for gun ownership.” Mr. Landau’s response also included a Quitavisas image.
Neither Ms. Tlhabi nor Mr. Avilés have responded to inquiries for comment.
Intriguingly, in a few instances, Mr. Landau’s scrutiny appeared to lead to apologies.
Salvador Ramírez, an official with Morena, Mexico’s dominant political party, remarked on a panel that Mr. Kirk had received “a taste of his own medicine” due to his pro-gun stance. Mr. Landau responded by expressing regret for ever engaging with the news outlet that hosted the panel during his tenure as ambassador to Mexico.
Mr. Ramírez promptly issued an apology.
He further added, “I also want to mention that I recognize the great work that Christopher Landau did as the former U.S. ambassador. I consider him an excellent public servant, and I believe he is also doing a good job at the U.S. State Department.”