Curbing Political Violence Through Visa Policy
HUNTER KOZAK: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”
CHARLIE KIRK: “Counting or not counting gang violence?”
The next second, Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck. The assassination occurred on September 10 at Utah Valley University—the first stop on Turning Point USA’s “American Comeback Tour.”
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau posted to X:
“I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country. I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action.”[1]
Landau’s post raises important questions: Is this within the State Department’s power? What does appropriate action mean? Does punishing vile speech violate free expression? And why focus on foreign nationals instead of domestic extremism?
The law is clear: under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State may revoke a visa at any time, without explanation. Section 212(a)(3) lists terrorism, espionage, and other security concerns as grounds for inadmissibility.[2] Visas are privileges, not rights. Since January, the State Department has revoked thousands of visas for alleged Hamas sympathizers amid violent pro-Palestine demonstrations. “Appropriate action” likely means tightening visa policy through expanded social media vetting for anti-American messaging.
While I support preventing security threats, I’m wary of policing ideas. Americans instinctively wince at punishing speech, yet political violence often begins with rhetoric. I’ve wrestled with this tension as a staunch free-speech advocate concerned about rising violence. Importantly, this policy targets foreign nationals, so concerns about constitutional violations do not apply. So long as speech monitoring doesn’t bleed into censorship of citizens, the action is justifiable.
Critics argue the State Department’s response is misplaced and a diversion from America’s real problem of homegrown violence. They’re right that restricting visas won’t eradicate political violence in America. But that doesn’t make the measure illegitimate. Even if it prevents only a handful of attacks, it remains legally sound and morally defensible.
The logic mirrors deploying the National Guard in D.C. to deter crime. It is a targeted response that won’t solve the problem entirely but can reduce harm. Will it eliminate all shootings and carjackings? No. Could it prevent some incidents without infringing on citizens’ rights? Yes. That alone makes the policy worth pursuing. But even if visa restrictions reduce political violence at the margins, the deeper crisis is cultural.
Political violence in America is nothing new. Lincoln, McKinley, JFK, MLK, RFK, and Reagan all faced it. But it has become more frequent and normalized. In the past fourteen months we’ve seen multiple assassination attempts on President Trump, the killing of Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, the firebombing of Tesla facilities, the doxxing of ICE agents, Molotov cocktails hurled at law enforcement in Los Angeles, and now, the murder of Charlie Kirk.
I could write a dissertation on the forces driving these attacks: a debt-ridden, anxious generation; technology accelerating radicalization; officials labeling opponents Nazis and Gestapo; and media coverage that turns violence into spectacle.
Still, America’s corroding culture doesn’t mean we should ignore threats from abroad. Visa policy, though narrow, offers a practical safeguard. But let’s be clear: America cannot deport its way out of this crisis. Visa restrictions are a Band-Aid, not a cure.
So yes, tighten visa policy. Use every legal tool to bar entry to those who cheer political assassinations. But that alone won’t heal America. The real remedy lies in rebuilding a culture where disagreement is debated, not demonized. Leaders must model civility. Charlie Kirk embodied this ethos, and tragically, he was killed while engaging in the kind of discourse this country urgently needs. Only that courage can reconcile our differences and break the cycle of violence.
The irony isn’t just that Kirk was shot while debating gun violence. In trying to silence him, his assassin amplified the message he stood for.
[1] Christopher Landau, "In light of yesterday’s horrific assassination of a leading political figure, I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country. I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action. Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the @StateDept can protect the American people," X, September 11, 2025. https://x.com/DeputySecState/status/1966114506116927972.
[2] Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3), 1201(i).