New H‑1B Vetting Rules Could Undermine Efforts to Fight Misinformation

On December 4, 2025, according to Reuters, the Trump administration announced increased vetting of applicants for H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, citing an internal State Department memo. Under the new rules, consular officers will review applicants’ resumes and CVs, LinkedIn and other professional profiles, social-media histories, public-facing online content, and previous employment related to content moderation, fact-checking, misinformation research, or online safety. The administration has framed this policy as a measure to prevent individuals who have allegedly engaged in “censorship” from entering the United States.

However, the policy is likely to produce a range of potentially damaging effects. Instead of protecting free expression, these rules may undermine the very systems established to detect and counter false information, and could, in effect, contribute to the spread of the misinformation they are intended to prevent.

What is the H-1B Visa and How Recent Changes Are Reshaping It?

H-1B visas allow U.S. companies to hire foreign employees with specialized knowledge in fields such as technology, engineering, medicine, finance, and academia. The program has long served as a key pathway for highly skilled workers to immigrate to the United States, helping universities, tech firms, and research institutions recruit global talent, including experts in online safety, cybersecurity, and misinformation research. The program has also been politically contested, with critics citing potential abuse by companies seeking lower-cost labor, while supporters argue it is vital for U.S. innovation and competitiveness. 

On September 19, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a Proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” introducing major changes to the H-1B program. Effective September 21, 2025, every new H-1B petition, including entries for the 2026 lottery, must be accompanied by a $100,000 payment, significantly raising costs for startups, universities, and medium-sized companies. The proclamation also empowers the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to take all necessary actions to implement these restrictions, laying the groundwork for deeper changes such as the enhanced vetting rules announced in December. Together, these measures represent the most substantial overhaul of the program in years, with impacts extending far beyond immigration policy.

How the New H-1B Rules Threaten Fact-Checking 

One of the most concerning aspects of the new policy is the way it reframes legitimate trust-and-safety work as a potential liability. Millions of users rely on fact-checkers, moderators, and misinformation experts to keep online spaces safe from manipulation, fabricated narratives, thereby reducing real-world harm by preventing the viral spread of dangerous falsehoods. By labeling such work as “possible censorship,” the rules blur the line between safeguarding online integrity and suppressing speech. 

Beyond its impact on skilled labor, the policy sends a broader message that fact-checking is biased or anti-speech. Narratives questioning the legitimacy of moderation were already spreading among groups critical of oversight, but tying these doubts to U.S. immigration policy makes them even more potent. 

Fact-checking risks being dismissed as ideological rather than evidence-based, moderation may be framed as partisan suppression, and users may lose trust in the platforms that rely on these tools. Over time, this can weaken public confidence in the accuracy of online information and give those spreading misinformation a stronger platform to influence audiences.

The Tensions Between Donald Trump and the Fact-Checking Ecosystem

The policy also reflects the ongoing tension between Donald Trump and the fact-checking community. Trump is one of the most frequently fact-checked political figures, with his claims on elections, public health, immigration, and foreign policy often triggering warnings or corrections on platforms. 

Trump publicly criticized these fact-checks, accusing social-media companies and fact-checkers of unfairly targeting him, and repeatedly called for the removal of moderation tools and fact-check labels, claiming they were forms of political suppression. This history helps explain the context of the new visa rules, as what the administration labels “censorship” often refers to routine enforcement of platform policies, including. 

Misbar has debunked numerous false claims promoted or amplified by Trump, from misleading U.S. foreign policy achievements to fabricated statistics. 

Trump’s 2020 Clash With Fact-Checkers

This was not the first time Donald Trump had clashed with fact-checkers. In May 2020, Trump signed an executive order aimed at limiting some of the legal protections afforded to social media platforms, claiming that companies like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook had “unchecked power” to censor and edit users’ content. 

The order followed X’s decision to attach fact-check labels to two of his tweets alleging widespread fraud in mail-in voting, which Trump characterized as election interference. He argued that these platforms stifled conservative voices and threatened free speech, calling for regulations that would strip them of legal immunity if they edited posts or removed content inconsistently with their terms of service. 

X and other social media companies strongly condemned the order, emphasizing that Section 230 protections underpin free expression and innovation online. Trump’s move was widely seen as both a symbolic assertion of control over his communications and an attempt to challenge the growing influence of fact-checking and moderation on social media platforms.

Read More

Meta Replaces Fact-Checkers with Community Notes Amid Backlash from Experts and Politicians

European Commission: Meta Misled Users With Its Pay-To-Avoid-Ads Model