Decoded: Why has Trump admin been sued for AI surveillance of visa holders

Three US labour unions have sued the Trump administration, alleging an AI-driven surveillance programme targeting lawful non-citizens' online speech

Three major US trade unions have taken the Trump administration to court, accusing officials of running an artificial intelligence-driven surveillance programme that monitored the online speech of visa holders and permanent residents lawfully present in the country.

 

The case, reviewed by Business Standard, claims that officials at the Departments of State and Homeland Security used AI tools to track and punish foreign nationals who expressed views the government “doesn’t like.”

 

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which represents the unions, the surveillance extended across social media platforms and relied on automated systems to identify posts deemed politically unfavourable. “This has been paired with a public intimidation campaign, silencing not just non-citizens with immigration status, but also the families, co-workers, and friends with whom their lives are integrated,” said EFF in a statement.

 

 

What the lawsuit filed by trade unions alleges

 

The plaintiffs are the United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), represented by EFF along with Muslim Advocates and Yale University’s Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.

 

They argue that the so-called Challenged Surveillance Programme was “designed to surveil, intimidate, and silence” lawful residents who express government-disfavoured opinions. The suit claims the government used the threat of immigration enforcement to suppress dissent, particularly in universities where many members work or study.

 

The complaint alleges two key elements:

 

1. Mass online surveillance through AI-driven tools scanning social-media activity of non-citizens.

2. Public intimidation via official warnings and examples of punished speech.

 

The unions contend the programme violates the First Amendment, which protects free expression, and the Administrative Procedure Act, by implementing agency actions without legal authority or public process.

 

Why the unions approached the court

 

The unions say their members—many of them graduate students, researchers, and academic workers—have been directly affected.

 

• Non-citizen members deleted social-media accounts and avoided union meetings.

• Some stepped down from leadership roles out of fear of immigration retaliation.

• The unions claim loss of participation and reduced ability to organise freely.

 

The lawsuit seeks to declare the programme unconstitutional, invalidate data collected under it, and permanently bar the government from continuing the surveillance.

 

Visa cancellations after Charlie Kirk’s killing sparked outrage

 

The unions’ case stems partly from visa revocations that followed the September assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The State Department cancelled the visas of six foreign nationals who had allegedly mocked or criticised Kirk’s death online.

 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau publicly warned that others expressing similar sentiments could face the same consequences. Official State Department accounts even shared screenshots of the “offending” comments, which the lawsuit calls an attempt to intimidate all visa holders.

 

President Trump later told reporters these actions were “the first of many to come,” suggesting a broader crackdown on dissenting views.

 

How the alleged surveillance programme expanded

 

According to the complaint reviewed by Business Standard, the visa cancellations were part of a larger system known as the Challenged Surveillance Programme. It allegedly tracks social-media content for “anti-American,” “anti-Israel,” or “pro-Palestinian” viewpoints.

 

The plaintiffs link it to executive orders issued shortly after Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, directing agencies to monitor for “hateful ideology” and “anti-American attitudes.” The unions claim this has discouraged lawful debate and academic freedom among international workers.

 

Voices from the legal community

 

“Visa revocations under these parameters are censorship, plain and simple,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “Mere mockery can’t be grounds for adverse government action – whether revocation of broadcast licences or revocation of visas.”

 

Among those affected was Tiago Santineli, a Brazilian comedian and online influencer with more than 430,000 followers on X. His visa was revoked after he posted that Kirk was “the reason for a Nazi demonstration” and added, “good riddance.”

 

Santineli later posted, “I can’t go to the US, but the worst thing is that Charlie Kirk will never be able to leave hahahahaha,” calling himself “the world’s first comedian to be banned from entering the US because of a joke.”

 

Another case cited is that of Enrique ‘Kike’ Gamarra, a veteran talk-show host from Paraguay, who called Kirk “a son of a bitch” during a broadcast. His visa was also cancelled.

 

Neither the State Department nor the Department of Homeland Security has publicly commented on the lawsuit.