State Department revoked six visas over foreign nationals' comments celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination

The U.S. State Department's official X account announced on October 14, 2025 that it had revoked the visas of six foreign nationals over social-media comments celebrating the September 10, 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. The department did not name the individuals, identifying them only by nationality -- Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, Germany, Brazil, and Paraguay -- and posted screenshots of their comments with usernames blacked out, appending "Visa revoked" to each post. The department said "the United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans."

Per the department's own posts, the Argentine national had written that Kirk "devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric" and deserved to burn in hell; the South African national mocked Americans grieving Kirk and called him a "white nationalist"; the Mexican national wrote that Kirk "died being a racist, he died being a misogynist" and that "there are people who deserve to die"; the German national wrote "when fascists die, democrats don't complain"; the Brazilian visa holder called Kirk's rally "a Nazi rally" and wrote that he "DIED TOO LATE"; and the Paraguayan national called Kirk "a son of a b----" who "died by his own rules."

The revocations followed Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau's statement the day after Kirk's killing, on September 11, 2025, that "foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country" and that he had directed consular officials to "undertake appropriate action" against such speech; Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently confirmed visa revocations were underway. Visa and immigration authority carries far less procedural protection than a criminal charge -- no indictment, no trial, no public evidentiary standard -- making it a comparatively low-friction instrument for penalizing speech content the government could not otherwise prosecute. None of the six was accused of unlawful conduct beyond the speech itself; the stated basis for each revocation was the content and tone of commentary about a political figure's killing, not any independently unlawful act.