The New York Times headlines: “U.S. Says It Revoked Visas of Some People Who Criticized Charlie Kirk.” Really? We revoked their visas for criticizing Charlie Kirk?
Obviously not. If you read on, you find:
The United States revoked the visas of at least six foreign citizens whom it accused of celebrating the assassination of the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, the State Department said in a series of social media posts on Tuesday.
From the State Department’s X feed:
An Argentine national said that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” and deserves to burn in hell.
Visa revoked. pic.twitter.com/4bQoXisHsz
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
Seems eminently reasonable to me, but the Times doesn’t see it that way:
The State Department’s X account on Tuesday posted screenshots of excerpts from online comments by six people it said had celebrated Mr. Kirk’s death, and said they were no longer welcome in the United States, raising questions about First Amendment protections.
***
Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “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.”Judges have rebuked Mr. Rubio for taking similar actions against pro-Palestinian activists and have ordered them freed from detention.
The liberal conception is that anyone has a right to come to the United States and stay here indefinitely, regardless of whether his presence is desirable (or even legal) or not. Secretary Rubio’s view is that a foreigner’s presence in the United States is a privilege that can be forfeited by criminal activity, but also by other conduct that makes the foreigner an undesirable guest. Such as cheering the assassination of American political figures.
Someday, the Supreme Court will decide who wins that one.
