US revokes six visas over Charlie Kirk death amid social media crackdown

In a move that underscores the U.S. government’s intensifying scrutiny of online speech, the State Department announced Tuesday that it has revoked the visas of six foreign nationals who posted celebratory or hostile remarks on social media following the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.

Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed on September 10 while speaking at a debate event at Utah Valley University. The suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, has been charged with murder and remains in custody without bail.

The visa revocations were made public via a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter), where the State Department stated: “The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans.” Officials said the individuals targeted had made inflammatory comments that appeared to glorify Kirk’s killing, which they deemed incompatible with U.S. values and visa eligibility.

Among those affected were nationals from Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, and Paraguay. Screenshots shared by the department included posts such as one from an Argentine user who wrote that Kirk “deserves to burn in hell,” and another suggesting he was now “somewhere hot”.

The crackdown comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to tighten immigration controls and monitor foreign nationals’ online behavior. Critics have raised concerns about the implications for free speech and the potential for overreach, especially as the government expands its surveillance of digital platforms.

In a symbolic gesture, President Donald Trump posthumously awarded Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, during a White House ceremony attended by Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk.

The State Department emphasized that it continues to monitor visa holders’ online activity and will take action against those who promote violence or hatred toward Americans. While the move has drawn praise from some conservative circles, civil liberties advocates warn that it could set a precedent for punishing speech that, while offensive, may not constitute a legal threat.