'Using coercive threats': Marco Rubio is the one who's actually engaging in 'brazen' censorship, lawsuit alleges

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was slapped with a lawsuit on Monday morning, claiming he's made a "brazen" censorship policy against noncitizen researchers, academics, and journalists under the guise of cracking down on those "complicit in censoring Americans."

The Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), located in San Francisco, filed the lawsuit on Monday in federal court in California, represented by attorneys with the Protect Democracy Project and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. The latter has been mired in a separate yearlong fight with President Donald Trump over public access to former special counsel Jack Smith's report on the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation.

CITR is asking a judge to declare that Rubio's alleged "Censorship Policy," complete with threats of "visa denial, visa revocation, detention, and deportation" for speech that tends to support content moderation, violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and must be blocked from "continuing to make those threats" against the group's members who "quite reasonably fear they will be next on the list if they continue their research and advocacy focused on the major internet platforms."

According to the complaint, what started nearly one year ago came to a head in December 2025, when Rubio stated he was prepared to "exclude or deport five specific individuals pursuant to the Policy—including the leaders of two organizations that are members of CITR."

"The Censorship Policy has succeeded in chilling the expressive and associational activities of those whose work it targets, including noncitizen members of Plaintiff Coalition for Independent Technology Research," the lawsuit said. "CITR is a non-profit organization whose members are research institutions, academics, journalists, and advocates who study and report on the impacts of technology on society, including questions relating to misinformation, disinformation, content moderation, and trust and safety. Defendants have already targeted CITR's membership under the Policy."

In late May, Rubio said in a statement that free speech is what makes America a "beacon" around the world and that he wouldn't allow "foreign officials who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States" to do so without consequence.

"It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil," he said, before turning to content moderation. "It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States. We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech."

"This visa restriction policy is pursuant to Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the Secretary of State to render inadmissible any alien whose entry into the United States 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,'" Rubio said, adding that "Certain family members may also be covered by these restrictions."

He also fired off posts on X vowing visa consequences for "foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans" online.

"For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights," said the secretary of state. "Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life – a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority," Rubio said. "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country. Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over."

According to the lawsuit, however, Rubio's "unconstitutionally vague" and "even incoherent" claimed prerogative to shrink the First Amendment while "using coercive threats" ignores relevant McCarthyism history.

"The legislative history of the foreign policy provisions confirms Congress's intent to restrict the Executive's authority to exclude noncitizens from the country based on their speech, beliefs, or associations," the filing said. "As explained in a Senate Committee report, Congress adopted the foreign policy provisions to replace McCarthy Era provisions of the INA and, in doing so, 'to take away the executive branch's authority to deny visas to foreigners solely because of the foreigner's political beliefs or because of his anticipated speech in the United States."

CITR executive director Brandi Geurkink said in a statement of her own that researchers matter, and so does the lawsuit.

"Researchers who help everyday people understand the impacts of Big Tech are scared that they and their families will be targeted for detention and deportation under this policy," Geurkink said. "At a time when AI is rapidly changing our lives and economy and people are already worried about their freedom and safety online, we need independent researchers more than ever. This policy is meant to censor researchers into silence and keep the public in the dark, and that's exactly what it's doing."