Labor unions sue Trump administration over social media surveillance
Summary
Lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), together with Muslim Advocates and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, are helping three US labour unions take legal action to stop a government social media surveillance programme targeting visa holders. The complaint alleges the initiative — dubbed “Catch and Revoke” in reports — uses AI to scan social accounts for pro-Hamas, pro-Palestine or antisemitic sentiment and can lead to visa revocation or other immigration penalties.
The unions named in the filing are the United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The lawsuit says the programme chills speech and union organising: many noncitizen members have deleted posts or accounts, avoided sharing union content, reduced public participation in rallies and in some cases even declined to report workplace abuses for fear of immigration consequences.
Key Points
- The EFF-supported lawsuit challenges a multi-agency surveillance effort that vets visa holders’ social media and may revoke visas for “non-conforming” views.
- Visa applicants must provide social media handles for the past five years; certain student and exchange visa holders are required to make accounts publicly viewable.
- Authorities reportedly use AI and automated tools to search for support of Hamas, Palestine, or antisemitism, which can trigger revocation of immigration benefits.
- Survey data cited in the complaint shows widespread self-censorship: over 60% of UAW noncitizen members and 30% of CWA noncitizen members have removed or limited social-media activity.
- A federal court in Massachusetts recently ruled that related executive orders were unconstitutional, preventing enforcement that targets protected speech — though the government may appeal.
- Government spokespeople defend the measures as necessary to protect public safety and to remove foreigners who advocate violence against Americans.
Context and relevance
This case sits at the intersection of immigration policy, free-speech law and AI-driven surveillance. It follows a pattern of expanded digital vetting of visa applicants introduced under previous administrations and escalated with automated monitoring tools. The Massachusetts decision that blocked enforcement of related executive orders is a significant legal precedent, but an appeal could reopen enforcement risks.
The complaint highlights real-world effects on labour organising and reporting of workplace issues, showing how automated vetting can chill associational and political activity. Internationally, other countries conduct social-media monitoring for security reasons, but advocates argue the US approach here resembles a blanket screening rather than targeted checks tied to concrete concerns.
Why should I read this
Quick version: if you care about free speech, immigration rights or how AI is being used by governments to police views online, this matters. The lawsuit argues the programme is silencing unions and their members — literally reshaping how people participate at work and in public. Read it because it shows how tech, law and everyday labour rights are colliding in ways that could affect many people.