Protecting Science from Government Intimidation

Last year, Blake, a budding computer scientist, had to consider more than just typical publication expenses for their latest peer-reviewed article. They faced the risk of detention and deportation due to their research in online safety. In their field, delivering international talks is crucial for career advancement. However, the US State Department had recently implemented a policy that could prevent researchers like Blake from entering the country or lead to their deportation. Consequently, Blake postponed their job market plans and chose to “shift the focus of my research.” (Blake’s name has been altered for anonymity.)

In July, a federal court provided temporary relief to Blake and other US-based computer scientists by blocking the Trump administration from enforcing its border censorship policy. This legal victory, spurred by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), followed public support from two global computing associations advocating for researchers like Blake.

In June, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the largest educational and scientific computing society globally, emphasized that “scientific progress depends on freedom of inquiry, communication, global mobility, and international collaboration… without undue political or institutional pressure.” Similarly, the Association of Internet Researchers (AOIR) supported these values and backed the legal action.

The lawsuit and public endorsements countered the federal government’s attempts to control scientific research by regulating researcher mobility. In May 2025, the State Department introduced a policy to exclude noncitizens researching misinformation, fact-checking, content moderation, and regulatory compliance within the tech industry. These restrictions, later expanded to include deportation, resemble policies in countries like China that restrict scholars’ overseas travel based on their research topics.

This visa-based censorship also impacts the tech industry by limiting international travel for safety teams. Trust and safety teams at tech companies work around the clock to combat child sexual abuse, scams, and human trafficking. Industry leaders Charlotte Willner and David Sullivan argue that the State Department’s policy is “undermining the urgent fight against criminals exploiting online platforms to prey on vulnerable populations.”

Why would the US threaten scientists engaged in AI and social media safety research, especially when their expertise is globally sought after? The State Department asserts these measures protect Americans from “encroachments” that compromise the right to free speech.

In an article in Science this January, Alondra Nelson, a former White House official, offered an alternative view: US pledges to shield from excessive regulations are camouflage for exercising discretion over who the government rewards, penalizes, and controls through ownership. By intimidating officials and researchers, those in power can manipulate the digital landscape to favor firms and political actors within their patronage network. Under this discretionary punishment system, individuals are encouraged to remain silent or conform to expected narratives.

Censorship at the border reshapes science

In a digital age where ideas can be widely shared online, how much can travel and immigration policies affect the integrity of science and industry? Such censorship creates significant shifts through intimidation, peer influence, and the unseen impact of biased selection.

Censorship primarily operates through intimidation, where individuals worry that their constitutionally-protected ideas could lead to government retaliation. For example, a social media and child safety expert might fear targeting if they speak at a conference. Faced with ambiguous official language and institutional silence, they may feel compelled to self-censor, either by remaining silent or altering their research focus. A survey conducted in January among US scientists revealed that 47% had adjusted their work, and 36% had abandoned at least one project due to concerns about adverse repercussions.

Self-censorship rates are high because intimidation reverberates through peer influence. Observing others altering or concealing their work, individuals adjust their perceptions of acceptable behavior, reinforcing a chilling effect. This effect intensifies when there are no counterexamples to challenge it.

The profound impact of censorship lies in its hijacking of institutional processes designed to be impartial. Both academia and industry are competitive environments that often evaluate individuals based on their accomplishments. When someone appears less productive due to censorship pressures, they may be overlooked for someone with more achievements on paper. Such systems tend to favor those least affected by censorship, potentially perpetuating a cycle of intimidation that can last generations.

Blake may wonder if intimidation or biased selection is why they have missed opportunities since the US censorship policy began, despite their reputation as a leader in their field. In computing, censorship disproportionately hinders women and underrepresented minorities, who often tackle challenging social issues and already face a lower status. If unaddressed, government intimidation could set the tech sector back generationally, undoing even modest progress toward inclusivity.

As censorship exerts control through selection, individual efforts to keep a low profile can inadvertently increase risks for others. Therefore, collective action is the most effective response, as demonstrated by the joint efforts of ACM, AOIR, and CITR.

Strengthening science against intimidation

How can individuals and institutions resist government attempts to influence science and industry through intimidation?

Institutions can safeguard individuals and disciplines by opposing intimidation. Public support can manifest in various ways. Successful legal challenges by organizations like CITR can protect fundamental rights while shielding individuals from retaliation. Public statements from professional bodies such as AOIR and ACM can mitigate the peer pressure effects of censorship, signaling to decision-makers in admissions, hiring, and promotions to recognize the bravery of those addressing important, high-risk topics.

This leadership is likely to emerge from smaller organizations with less at stake. However, larger organizations can contribute by alleviating the burdens of censorship on targeted researchers and supporting rights-protective organizations.

Leaders can harness their influence, networks, resources, and authority to counteract the forces that make us unwitting accomplices. Simple actions, like speaking up during hiring or promotion discussions, can shift key decisions away from censorship’s gravity. We can also design our fields to facilitate equitable participation despite government restrictions. By incorporating remote, secure participation into our teams and conferences, we enhance inclusivity and environmental sustainability.

Individuals can fortify resilience among peers by educating themselves and advocating for colleagues affected by government threats. Since censorship operates through peer influence and field-level selection, we are most effective when united. Supporting organizations like CITR, which leverage collective power to defend our rights, is crucial.

For Blake, the court ruling and public endorsements from ACM and AOIR offer a temporary reprieve. As global efforts to regulate AI and social media intensify, Blake’s research remains in high demand. As they re-enter the job market, the crucial question remains: will the tech industry and scientific community address these threats or allow government intimidation to prevail? The outcome depends on our collective actions.