BANGKOK, THAILAND – The US Embassy in Thailand tightened its visa rules and required applicants to make their social media profiles public for screening, prompting immediate criticism over privacy and civil liberties.
New guidelines from the US Embassy in Thailand
The US Embassy in Thailand announced that new rules applied to visa applications under which social media activity would be reviewed.
To enable this screening, applicants were instructed to switch the privacy settings of all their social media accounts to “public.” Officials stated that this was necessary so that the profiles could be examined.
Which visa categories were affected
According to the announcement, the requirement covered applicants for A-3, C-3 (when employed as domestic staff), G-5 and several H categories, including H1-B, H-3 and H-4 for dependants of H-1B and H-3 holders.
The embassy also listed F, M, J, K-1, K-2, K-3, Q, R-1, R-2, S, T, U and other non-immigrant visa categories as being subject to the new checks.
Justification: verifying identity and eligibility
The embassy said the measure was part of the vetting needed to establish the identity and immigration eligibility of applicants under US law.
Those who chose not to make their profiles public were warned they could face delays in the processing of their applications.
Immediate backlash online
On social networks, users quickly pushed back and voiced concern about privacy and civil rights.
Some also argued that the visa application process should remain confidential and should not become indirectly visible “to everyone” through public profiles.
Key concern: applicants without social media
Several commentators asked how authorities would treat applicants who did not use social media or were not active on such platforms.
The embassy’s statement did not address this scenario and referred only in general terms to “all social media accounts” held by applicants.
Political criticism and Trump references
Part of the backlash was directed at the White House and linked the move to what was seen as a restrictive immigration policy, in some cases explicitly referring to President Donald Trump.
In many reactions, the measure was described as an intrusion into personal freedom and privacy, even though it was officially justified as a tool for security and eligibility checks.
Voices from the comments
One user named Danny Dukes wrote, in essence, that “the entire public” would then be able to see all posts and that applications should remain private.
“The entire public could then see every post, and applications should stay private.”
said Danny Dukes, social media user.
Other comments asked,
“What if they do not use social media at all?”
and raised the accusation that people had to
“give up freedom in order to visit the land of freedom.”