2LT International News

WASHINGTON, D.C.: A senior State Department official said this week that President Donald Trump’s administration has revoked roughly 80,000 non-immigrant visas since taking office on January 20, citing offenses such as driving under the influence, assault, and theft.

The Washington Examiner first reported the scale of these revocations, which illustrate a wide-ranging immigration crackdown undertaken after Trump assumed the presidency, resulting in the deportation of unprecedented numbers of migrants, including individuals who held valid visas.

The administration has also implemented more demanding standards for visa issuance, introducing stricter social media vetting and expanding its screening measures. Of the visas revoked, approximately 16,000 were linked to DUI cases, around 12,000 to assault, and another 8,000 to theft. “These three offenses accounted for nearly half of the revocations this year,” the senior official said, speaking anonymously.

In August, a State Department spokesperson confirmed that more than 6,000 student visas had been canceled for overstaying or violating U.S. laws, with a small portion tied to allegations of “support for terrorism.” The department also said last month that at least six visas were withdrawn due to social media posts referencing the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in May that he has revoked the visas of hundreds — possibly thousands — of individuals, including students, for involvement in activities he described as conflicting with U.S. foreign policy priorities.

Recent State Department guidance instructed U.S. diplomats overseas to maintain heightened scrutiny of applicants who may be considered hostile to the United States or have a record of political activism.

Officials in the Trump administration have asserted that holders of student visas and green cards could face deportation for expressing support for Palestinians or for criticizing Israel’s actions in the Gaza conflict, arguing that such positions threaten U.S. foreign policy and amount to pro-Hamas sentiment.