WASHINGTON: British tech campaigner Imran Ahmed has criticised recent US visa restrictions as a form of “punishment”, saying the move targets his organisation’s work against online disinformation and undermines freedom of speech.
Mr Ahmed, who heads the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), said the decision amounted to retaliation for advocacy aimed at holding major technology platforms accountable. The US State Department recently announced visa sanctions against five European figures, accusing them of attempting to coerce platforms into censoring Americans’ viewpoints.
Read More: Tech start-ups — Lahore round of She Loves Tech shows ingenuity
The CCDH strongly rejected the allegation, stating that its research focuses on identifying harms linked to online disinformation and artificial intelligence. The sanctions drew sharp criticism from the European Union and several member states, which described the move as unjustified and troubling.
Speaking after filing a lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump in a New York court, Mr Ahmed said the restrictions threatened fundamental constitutional protections. He argued that his work involved informing the public and urging lawmakers and regulators to act, activities that should be safeguarded under the First Amendment.
Mr Ahmed, a British citizen and US permanent resident, warned that the action reflected what he described as “tyrannical behaviour”. He said it sent a chilling message to civil society organisations engaged in fact-checking and content moderation.
Explaining his legal challenge, Mr Ahmed said his lawyers had sought a restraining order to prevent any action against him, including detention or arrest. He noted that previous administrations had attempted to cancel green cards of legal permanent residents, sometimes involving arrests by immigration authorities.
He added that his permanent residency status was based on marriage to a US citizen and his family ties in the country. As such, he argued, the government was legally bound to respect constitutional protections in its treatment of him.
Read More: Pakistan’s diplomatic triumphs in 2025
The case has renewed debate over the balance between combating disinformation and protecting free expression, particularly as governments worldwide face increasing scrutiny over their role in regulating digital platforms.