The US Department of State has announced that foreign students will be required to unlock their social media profiles, allowing US diplomats to review their online activities before they can obtain educational and exchange visas. Those who fail to comply will face suspicion from US officials for concealing these activities.

The new guidance, released by the State Department on Wednesday, instructs US diplomats to conduct online presence reviews, searching for “any signs of hostility towards US citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.”

In a separate cable obtained by Politico, diplomats are also instructed to flag “advocacy, aid, or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to US national security” and “support for illicit antisemitic harassment or violence.” The screening for “antisemitic” activities aligns with similar directives issued by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, and has been criticized as an effort to suppress opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza.

The State Department’s new checks target students and other visa applicants in the F, M, and J categories, which cover academic, vocational, and cultural exchange programs.

“American citizens expect their government to make every effort to make our country safer, and the Trump administration is doing just that,” a senior State Department official stated, arguing that Marco Rubio “is helping to make America and its universities safer while bringing the State Department into the 21st century.”

The Trump administration had suspended the issuance of new student visas late last month while it considered new social media screening strategies. The US has also subjected Chinese students to special scrutiny amid tense negotiations over tariffs and the supply of rare earth metals and minerals to the United States.

The State Department’s directive has allowed diplomatic missions to resume interview programs for educational and exchange visas but added that consular officers will subject all F, M, and J visa applicants to a “comprehensive and detailed review.”

“To facilitate this review, all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas will be asked to change the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to ‘public’,” the official said. “Strengthening the social media review will ensure that we properly screen every individual who wishes to visit our country.”

In a controversial move that has divided the artificial intelligence industry and Donald Trump’s Republican party, major technology companies are backing a lobbying campaign to prohibit US states from regulating AI models for a decade.

According to sources familiar with the matter, lobbyists acting on behalf of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are asking the Senate to suspend states from introducing their own legislative initiatives related to artificial intelligence for 10 years.

This provision was passed last month as part of the US House of Representatives’ approval of President Donald Trump’s “big and beautiful” budget bill. The Senate hopes to release its own version this week, aiming to pass the legislation by July 4.

Chip Pickering, a former congressman and the CEO of INCOMPAS, is advocating for this proposal on behalf of the technology trade association’s members, which include leading companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Google, as well as smaller data, energy, and infrastructure firms and law firms.

“This is the right policy at the right time for American leadership,” Pickering told the Financial Times (FT). “But it is equally important in terms of competition with China.”

The trade group INCOMPAS established the AI Competition Center (AICC) in 2024 to lobby legislators and regulators. Earlier this year, Amazon’s cloud division and Meta joined the AICC subgroup as debates over AI rules intensified and the EU took a series of measures to control the sector.

Critics argue that the stance of big tech companies is about securing their dominance in the race to develop artificial general intelligence, which is understood as models that surpass human capabilities in most areas.

“Responsible innovation should not fear laws that prohibit irresponsible practices,” said Asad Ramzanali, director of AI and technology policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator at Vanderbilt University.

Max Tegmark, an MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute, a non-profit organization campaigning for AI regulation, stated, “This is a power grab by tech oligarchs trying to consolidate more wealth and power.”

The proposed moratorium has also divided the technology sector and Republican politicians who have expressed concerns about prohibiting states from overseeing powerful technologies that have the potential to cause social and economic disruption.

Supporters argue that the provision is necessary to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent regional rules that could stifle innovation and cause the US to fall behind China.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said during a Senate hearing last month that it would be “catastrophic” for the US to require tech companies to meet certain criteria, such as transparency and safety, before releasing their products. This could soon become the case under the new AI Act in the EU.

AI safety advocates, such as Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei, have warned that relying on self-regulation could have disastrous societal consequences as Silicon Valley competes to release increasingly powerful models.

Republicans pushing for the proposal’s inclusion are investigating whether it complies with the Senate’s complex rules, which require that any provision included in a “budget reconciliation” bill must have a budgetary impact. The party is using this tactic to pass the bill without Democratic votes.

Ted Cruz, the top Republican on the Senate commerce committee, has proposed a solution: states that do not comply with the provision will be ineligible for billions of dollars in federal funds intended to expand broadband networks in underserved rural areas.

However, there is still little political consensus on how to oversee this rapidly evolving field, and no meaningful federal regulation on testing or data protection has been passed so far.

“You don’t want the number one country in the world for innovation to fall behind on artificial intelligence,” Republican senator Thom Tillis said in an interview. “If you suddenly have 50 different regulatory or legal frameworks, who in their right mind wouldn’t see that as an obstacle?”

Republican senator Steve Daines remarked, “I don’t like doing anything that starts to restrict the abilities of states. But there may be some wisdom in this, considering that the alternative could lead to a patchwork of AI regulations that could hinder and slow down the US.”

Other Republican senators, such as Josh Hawley, author of the book The Tyranny of Big Tech, and Marsha Blackburn, who supported a Tennessee law protecting the music industry from unauthorized AI use, oppose the moratorium.

“We don’t know what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years, and tying the hands of states by giving it free rein is potentially dangerous,” Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X. “This should be removed in the Senate.”

As cracks within Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) coalition become increasingly visible, a new point of contention has emerged: attacks on Iran.

Amid a debate over the possibility of the US joining Israel in a conflict against Iran, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon have emerged as the faces of MAGA resistance to American involvement.

Carlson and Bannon have long opposed US intervention in foreign conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. This stance has put them at odds with figures like Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Levin and Hannity emerge as MAGA ‘hawks’

These figures celebrated after Israel launched a series of strikes against Iran last week.

Following the announcement of Israel’s attacks, Levin took a victory lap on Hannity’s eponymous Fox News program, telling the host, “The Iranians are about to get a beating, and it’s been coming since Jimmy Carter. They think because it’s Joe Biden’s administration, they’re going to get away with it, they’re going to get nuclear weapons, and the world is going to sit there and not know what to do.”

Levin added that Israel would not “sit back and take it.” He has been campaigning against diplomatic relations with Iran for months, positioning himself as a leading advocate for military action within Trump’s circle.

Carlson to Levin and Hannity: ‘Warmongers’

Carlson and Bannon warned against US involvement in the Iran conflict. Last week, Bannon stated that Israel wants the US to “go on the offense” against Tehran, while Carlson labeled Levin and Hannity as “warmongers.”

Carlson reiterated his views in an interview with Bannon on Monday, saying, “The point is, if it’s hateful to say, ‘Hey, let’s focus on my country where I was born, where my family has lived for hundreds of years, that was the promise we made in the last election, please do that,’ then you’ve really lost your perspective, I guess is what I would say.”

The former Fox News host pointed to a series of domestic policy issues in the US that he would prefer the Trump administration to focus on, including immigration and the fentanyl crisis.

Referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Carlson remarked, “It’s like, a leader of a country who does not have majority support in his own country… wants a course of action that involves the United States, and all of that is ignored because I don’t agree with it. Anyway, I think it’s going to happen. Who cares what I think.”

When Bannon asked, “You think we’re going to join the offensive operation?” Carlson replied, “Yes, we are.”

Bannon responded, “Well, we have to stop that, we can’t, we have to stop it.”

‘Like listening to your ex-wife scream for alimony payments’

Monday’s interview took place while Trump was at the G7 summit in Canada. During the summit, Trump avoided a reporter’s question about what it would take for the US to get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict.

“I don’t want to talk about that,” Trump said while alongside Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This statement came a day after he told ABC it was “possible” the US would get involved.

On Monday, Carlson directly attacked Levin, stating, “When Mark Levin comes on television, it’s like listening to your ex-wife scream for alimony payments. It’s not attractive at all. That’s why they don’t put him on television. Then Sean [Hannity] insisted, and they gave him some weekend show that nobody watches.”

Hannity and Levin have become Carlson’s primary targets in recent days, especially after they celebrated Israel’s attacks on Hannity’s show last week.

In the days before the attack, Carlson had harshly criticized Levin after the host of The Mark Levin Show called Steve Witkoff, a potential Trump Middle East envoy, a “fifth-column isolationist” and mockingly discussed his handling of nuclear deal negotiations with Iran.

Accusing Fox News of ‘opening the propaganda hose’

On Monday, Carlson accused his former employer, Fox News, of “opening the propaganda hose” to instill a specific narrative in its viewers.

“What they’re doing is what they always do, which is turn the propaganda hose on full blast, wrap the old Fox viewers around the axle, and get them to bow to whatever you want,” he told Bannon.

The interview on Monday came after both MAGA figures drew a clear line regarding the US being drawn into Israel’s war with Iran.

“If you’re going to go it alone, you handle your business or you don’t. You don’t need us. You decide to go it alone,” Bannon said on his podcast last week, referring to Israel.

Carlson also reacted strongly to suggestions of US involvement, writing on X last week, “The real division isn’t between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real division is between those who recklessly encourage violence and those who try to prevent it, between the warmongers and the peacemakers.”

“Who are the warmongers? Anyone who called Donald Trump today and demanded airstrikes and other direct US military involvement in a war with Iran is a warmonger,” Carlson added, taking a veiled shot at Netanyahu.

On Monday, Carlson told Bannon he believes the Iran-Israel conflict will escalate into a “full-scale war” involving many other countries, adding that it would be “very easy” for the US to be drawn in.

“We have so many assets in that region, we’re so dependent on the energy from that region… there’s so much that could go wrong,” Carlson said.

Trump clashes with Carlson

In an unprecedented move, Trump lashed out at commentator Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News host and one of his most reliable media allies, for criticizing his stance on Iran.

“Will somebody please explain to the FAKE TUCKER CARLSON that Iran will NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social network Monday evening.

During a meeting with the British prime minister at the G7 summit, which he left early due to the Middle East crisis, Trump said, “I don’t know what Tucker Carlson said. Let him find a television channel and people will listen.”

Last week, Carlson had called Trump “complicit” in Israel’s all-out war against Iran and criticized the “warmongers” encouraging “direct US involvement in the war.”

Flynn: Israeli victory will strengthen US global dominance

Meanwhile, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who briefly served as National Security Advisor in the first Trump administration, appeared on Bannon’s podcast, War Room, to argue in support of Israel’s attacks on Iran.

Flynn asserted that Israel should be allowed to “finish the Iran issue” so the US can “turn its full attention to the CCP.”

“Israel’s victory, or the perception of victory, will consolidate Israel’s dominance in the region and strengthen America’s global dominance,” he argued.

Claiming that Israel is defending “Western civilization” against a “psychopathic regime” while fighting its own war, Flynn suggested that an Israeli victory would also expand the scope of the Abraham Accords.

“The issue is China, China, China. Your audience has to understand that,” Flynn said, suggesting that a US capable of establishing a “positive” relationship with Iran would gain an advantage over China, thereby weakening it.

Pushing the ‘new Iranian regime’ toward the Indian subcontinent

Flynn argued that to stabilize the region, it is necessary to support an Israeli victory against the Iranian leadership, which he described as the most “destabilizing” element in the area.

Referring to organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar Allah, Flynn claimed that Iran controls Iraq and Kurdistan.

He asserted that Arab nations in the region are closely watching the Israeli operation, claiming their militaries are incapable of conducting such operations, which he said is also important for the US.

The former advisor noted that an Iran closer to the West and the US would also mean an Iran closer to India, emphasizing that this is why they refer to the region as the “Indo-Pacific basin.”

“The Indo-Pacific basin is the defining element of this century,” Flynn said, warning that if they do not confront China, “the wolf will be inside the house.”