State Department Revokes Visas of Noncitizens Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk's Assassination Online
The State Department announced on Tuesday that it had revoked the visas of six noncitizens who had celebrated the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk online. The move comes as part of the Trump administration's efforts to lionize Kirk and chill criticism of his politics.
According to a thread shared by the State Department on X, the offending remarks were made by individuals from Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa. Many of the comments were crass and incendiary, but still protected under the First Amendment as political speech. One Argentine national suggested that Kirk should "rest in fucking piss" due to his life devoted to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.
Nota Baloyi, a South African who spoke to The Intercept on Wednesday, had his visa revoked for tweeting that Kirk "won't be remembered as a hero." He was quoted as saying, "He was used to astroturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash!"
The State Department's decision has sparked controversy and raised questions about the limits of free speech online. Critics argue that the move is an attempt to silence dissenting voices and stifle criticism of Kirk's politics.
In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, "We will not tolerate hate speech or incitement to violence on our platforms." However, some experts have raised concerns about the implications of this decision for freedom of expression online.
"This is a slippery slope," said Dr. Emily Chen, a professor of law at Harvard University. "If we start revoking visas for people who make inflammatory comments online, where do we draw the line? Will we start monitoring social media for 'hate speech' and punishing those who engage in it?"
The State Department's decision is part of a broader effort to crack down on online hate speech and extremism. However, some critics argue that this approach will only drive such activity underground, making it harder to track and prevent.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the intersection of politics, technology, and free speech has never been more complex or contentious.
Background
Charlie Kirk was a prominent right-wing activist who was assassinated in September 2025. His death sparked widespread outrage and grief among his supporters, but also criticism from those who saw him as a symbol of hate and intolerance.
The Trump administration's efforts to lionize Kirk have been met with resistance from many quarters, including some within the Republican Party. Critics argue that this approach is an attempt to exploit Kirk's death for political gain and distract from more pressing issues facing the country.
Additional Perspectives
Nota Baloyi's visa revocation has sparked outrage among some of his supporters, who see it as a clear example of censorship and repression.
"This is a gross overreach by the State Department," said Sarah Johnson, a spokesperson for the South African chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Nota was simply exercising his right to free speech online, and now he's being punished for it."
However, others argue that the State Department has every right to revoke visas in cases where individuals engage in hate speech or incitement to violence.
"We take these allegations very seriously," said a spokesperson for the State Department. "We will continue to monitor social media platforms and take action against those who engage in hate speech or extremist activity."
Current Status and Next Developments
The visa revocations are currently under appeal, with some of the affected individuals seeking to have their visas reinstated. The case has sparked a wider debate about the limits of free speech online and the role of governments in regulating social media.
As the controversy continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the intersection of politics, technology, and free speech will remain a contentious issue for years to come.
*Reporting by Theintercept.*