Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration’s State Department policy that restricted visas for foreign nationals involved in efforts to censor Americans online.
Boasberg issued the sweeping 58-page memorandum opinion on July 14, siding with the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, or CITR, which represents leftist researchers, fake fact-checkers, nonprofit activists, and so-called “trust and safety” professionals.
The rogue judge concluded that CITR was likely to prove that the State Department’s policy discriminates against one side of the debate over online content moderation and therefore violates the First Amendment.
The policy, announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in May 2025, authorized visa restrictions against foreign nationals deemed responsible for—or complicit in—the censorship of protected American expression.
Rubio made the purpose of the policy perfectly clear: Foreign bureaucrats, activists, and censorship organizations would no longer be permitted to interfere with Americans’ constitutional rights and then expect unrestricted access to the United States.
The State Department said foreign officials had used arrests, fines, threats, and regulatory pressure to force American technology companies to silence lawful speech.
According to the court record, the State Department had expanded the policy to include noncitizens engaged in “combatting misinformation, disinformation or false narratives, fact-checking, content moderation, compliance, and trust and safety.”
Consular officers were directed to scrutinize applicants’ work histories, LinkedIn profiles, and media appearances for such activity and pursue visa ineligibility findings. The Department also used the same foreign-policy grounds to deem certain lawful permanent residents deportable.
Boasberg argued the expanded policy went beyond foreign officials wielding government power and threatened private researchers and nonprofit activists.
“The policy, at its core, does not burden all speech about platforms, all research into content moderation, or all advocacy about online harms,” Boasberg wrote.
Instead, the activist judge claimed, the Trump administration had placed its “enforcement thumb against one side of the scale” by targeting foreign nationals who advocate for more content moderation, more “disinformation” labels, more restrictions, and greater pressure on advertisers and technology companies.
Boasberg acknowledged that the federal government has a “legitimate interest” in responding when foreign officials use sovereign power to suppress protected American expression.
But he ruled that the policy had allegedly crossed a constitutional line by reaching private activists whose work consisted of research, reporting, petitions, advertiser campaigns, and advocacy for stricter content moderation.
Among those previously “targeted” were Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate; Global Disinformation Index co-founder Clare Melford; HateAid leaders Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg; and former European Commissioner Thierry Breton.
The Gateway Pundit reported in December that the Trump administration barred the foreign operatives after accusing them of organizing efforts to pressure American platforms into pushing viewpoints they opposed.
This was not an abstract debate for The Gateway Pundit.
In 2023, we detailed how the Global Disinformation Index censored conservatives and their advertisers in an effort to “starve them to death.”
GDI put outlets like The Gateway Pundit on exclusion lists that advertising companies and Google used to withhold monetization. The group received hundreds of thousands in U.S. taxpayer funds through the State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy and related channels during the prior administration, money used to blacklist American conservative websites.
We reported how the radicals at the State Department funneled over $300,000 to this radical leftist group set up to blacklist conservative media outlets. GDI’s rankings consistently flagged right-leaning sites as high-risk while giving left-leaning outlets a free pass.
In April 2025, The Gateway Pundit reported on audio of GDI co-founder Clare Melford discussing an ecosystem of organizations whose campaigns resulted in advertising technology companies withdrawing their services from The Gateway Pundit and Breitbart.
Melford specifically acknowledged that publicity attacking The Gateway Pundit led companies, including Google, to stop providing monetization services to the publication.
This is what the censorship cartel calls “research.”
They could not defeat conservative media through honest debate, so they went after the money.
They created blacklists, pressured advertisers, smeared independent journalists, and attempted to starve conservative publications out of existence, all while hiding behind benign-sounding labels such as “content moderation,” “trust and safety,” and “disinformation research.”
Yet Boasberg’s ruling portrays these operatives as the victims.
Ad block users: Some site features may not work correctly while an ad blocker is enabled, because they break scripts and content this website depends on. If you can’t see comments below, for example, please disable your ad blocker.
