Tech researchers are suing the Trump administration over the future of online safety

科技研究人员起诉特朗普政府，旨在捍卫在线安全未来

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its earliest days back in office, the Trump administration has been going after researchers who study and try to counter hate speech, harassment, propaganda, and disinformation online. Now, some of those researchers are fighting back. Last week their lawsuit—which could have global repercussions for online safety and free speech—made its first appearance in court. 执行摘要 特朗普政府自重返白宫以来，一直针对那些研究并试图打击网络仇恨言论、骚扰、宣传和虚假信息的研究人员。现在，其中一些研究人员开始反击。上周，他们的诉讼案首次在法庭上亮相，该案可能对全球在线安全和言论自由产生深远影响。

This fight started a year ago, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on X what he called a “visa restriction policy” against “foreign officials and other persons” who were “complicit in censoring Americans.” Since then, a handful of foreign officials and researchers have been barred from travel to the US, and in theory, anyone working in fact-checking or online trust and safety more broadly could face the same restrictions. 这场斗争始于一年前，当时美国国务卿马可·鲁比奥（Marco Rubio）在 X 上宣布了一项他所谓的“签证限制政策”，针对的是那些“参与审查美国人”的“外国官员及其他人员”。自那时起，已有少数外国官员和研究人员被禁止进入美国；从理论上讲，任何从事事实核查或更广泛的在线信任与安全工作的人都可能面临同样的限制。

Still, the exact implications of Rubio’s announcement are unclear—purposefully so, argues Carrie DeCell, a lawyer representing the researchers. “This policy is expansive and incredibly vague, and the chilling effects are correspondingly enormous,” DeCell said outside the courthouse in Washington, DC, on May 13. 尽管如此，鲁比奥声明的具体含义尚不明确——代表研究人员的律师凯莉·德塞尔（Carrie DeCell）认为，这种模糊是蓄意的。5月13日，德塞尔在华盛顿特区的法院外表示：“这项政策范围广泛且极其模糊，其产生的寒蝉效应也相应巨大。”

The case has been brought by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), an advocacy organization for tech researchers. It is suing Rubio, former US secretary of homeland security Kristi Noem, and former US attorney general Pam Bondi and asking the court to strike down the policy as unconstitutional. In their complaint, the plaintiffs say the policy violates the speech and due process rights of foreign-born tech researchers and workers whose “work supports greater moderation of content on the [tech] platforms.” 该诉讼由科技研究人员倡导组织“独立技术研究联盟”（CITR）提起。该组织正在起诉鲁比奥、前美国国土安全部部长克里斯蒂·诺姆（Kristi Noem）和前美国司法部长帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi），并要求法院裁定该政策违宪。原告在诉状中称，该政策侵犯了外籍科技研究人员和从业者的言论自由权和正当程序权利，而这些人的“工作旨在支持科技平台进行更有效的审核”。

CITR is represented by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute and the legal nonprofit Protect Democracy. DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute, tells MIT Technology Review that they’re in court because the Trump administration is effectively “using immigration law to punish people for expressing views that it disagrees with.” CITR 由哥伦比亚大学奈特第一修正案研究所（Knight First Amendment Institute）和法律非营利组织“保护民主”（Protect Democracy）代理。奈特研究所的高级专职律师德塞尔告诉《麻省理工科技评论》，他们之所以诉诸法庭，是因为特朗普政府实际上是在“利用移民法来惩罚那些表达与其观点不一致的人”。

This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s “America Undone” series, examining how the foundations of US success in science and innovation are currently under threat. You can read the rest here. 本文是《麻省理工科技评论》“美国崩溃”（America Undone）系列报道的一部分，该系列旨在探讨美国在科学和创新领域取得成功的基石目前如何受到威胁。您可以点击此处阅读全文。

Most immediately, the plaintiffs are asking the government to halt these visa restrictions while the case proceeds. Zachariah Lindsey, the assistant US attorney representing Rubio and the other defendants, argued in last week’s hearing that the government is not targeting speech but, rather, “conduct [that] is assisting or facilitating foreign government censorship of free speech.” At the end of the week, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case. 目前，原告最直接的诉求是要求政府在案件审理期间暂停这些签证限制。代表鲁比奥及其他被告的美国助理检察官扎卡里·林赛（Zachariah Lindsey）在上周的听证会上辩称，政府并非针对言论，而是针对“协助或促进外国政府审查言论自由的行为”。周末，政府提交了驳回此案的动议。

The judge has yet to rule on either motion, and his questions so far appeared to focus on parsing what (and who) is actually affected by the State Department’s announcements, as well as other procedural issues. The outcome of the case may ultimately affect how much the public knows about the risks of social media and AI, says Nicole Schneidman, head of Protect Democracy’s technology and data governance team. The workers bringing this suit, she says, “serve a really, really important function in educating the public, holding tech companies accountable, doing research on the ramifications that advanced technology has on our society.” 法官尚未对任何一项动议作出裁决，他目前的问题似乎集中在解析国务院的声明究竟影响了什么（以及哪些人），以及其他程序性问题上。“保护民主”组织技术与数据治理团队负责人妮可·施奈德曼（Nicole Schneidman）表示，此案的结果最终可能会影响公众对社交媒体和人工智能风险的了解程度。她说，提起诉讼的工作人员“在教育公众、追究科技公司责任以及研究先进技术对我们社会的影响方面，发挥着非常、非常重要的作用。”

“A political witch hunt” “一场政治猎巫行动”

CITR’s lawsuit is the latest salvo in a yearslong battle over how the internet should be moderated, and by whom—a question that has become increasingly political and entangled in allegations of censorship. For years, Trump and his allies have claimed to be victims of a vast conspiracy between government agencies, civil society groups, academics, and Big Tech platforms to specifically censor conservative voices online. According to this narrative, a so-called “censorship-industrial complex” helped the Biden administration subvert First Amendment protections on speech by allegedly outsourcing censorship to these groups. CITR 的诉讼是多年来关于互联网应如何管理以及由谁管理这一争论的最新一波攻势——这个问题已变得日益政治化，并陷入了关于审查制度的指控之中。多年来，特朗普及其盟友一直声称自己是政府机构、民间团体、学者和大型科技平台之间巨大阴谋的受害者，目的是专门审查网上的保守派声音。根据这种说法，所谓的“审查工业复合体”通过将审查外包给这些团体，帮助拜登政府颠覆了第一修正案对言论自由的保护。

The State Department claims Rubio was able to implement the immigration policy because the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes him to “render inadmissible any alien whose entry into the United States ‘would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.’” Before the current Trump administration, the statute was rarely invoked, and when it was, it was typically with more limited, specific criteria, rather than its current application against anyone who has participated in alleged censorship—an action that has no legal definition. 国务院声称，鲁比奥之所以能够实施该移民政策，是因为《移民与国籍法》授权他“拒绝任何其进入美国‘可能对美国产生严重不利外交政策后果’的外国人入境”。在现任特朗普政府之前，该法规很少被援引；即便被援引，通常也基于更有限、更具体的标准，而不是像现在这样针对任何参与所谓“审查”的人——而“审查”这一行为在法律上并无明确定义。

The administration first deployed the policy in July 2025, when Rubio issued a statement announcing the revocation of visas for Alexandre de Moraes, the lead justice on the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, and “his allies on the court” who were involved in prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former president. The prosecution was a “political witch hunt,” said Rubio, calling it evidence of a “censorship complex so sweeping that it not only violates basic rights of Brazilians, but also … targets Americans.” 特朗普政府于 2025 年 7 月首次部署了该政策。当时，鲁比奥发表声明，宣布吊销巴西联邦最高法院首席大法官亚历山大·德·莫赖斯（Alexandre de Moraes）及其“法院盟友”的签证，理由是他们参与了对巴西前总统雅伊尔·博索纳罗（Jair Bolsonaro）的起诉。鲁比奥称此次起诉是“一场政治猎巫行动”，并称其证明了一个“审查复合体”的存在，该复合体“范围之广，不仅侵犯了巴西人的基本权利，还……针对美国人”。

Then, in early December, the State Department issued instructions to embassies to reject H-1B visa applications from individuals who had worked specifically in fact-checking, online trust and safety, and mis- or disinformation research, as Reuters first reported. A few weeks later, on December 23, the agency announced visa restrictions for five Europeans whom it accused of censoring Americans. This included two CITR members: Imran Ahmed, founder and CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which documents hate speech on social media platforms, and Clare Melford, cofounder of the Global Disinformation Index, which ranks websites according to how often they publish hate speech and disinformation. Also banned were the former European Union commissioner Thierry Breton, a key architect of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (which the State Department has called “Orwellian” and an example of censorship). 随后，据路透社首次报道，国务院在 12 月初向各使馆发出指示，要求拒绝那些专门从事事实核查、在线信任与安全以及错误或虚假信息研究的人员的 H-1B 签证申请。几周后的 12 月 23 日，该机构宣布对五名欧洲人实施签证限制，指控他们审查美国人。其中包括两名 CITR 成员：记录社交媒体平台仇恨言论的“反数字仇恨中心”（Center for Countering Digital Hate）创始人兼首席执行官伊姆兰·艾哈迈德（Imran Ahmed），以及根据网站发布仇恨言论和虚假信息的频率对其进行排名的“全球虚假信息指数”（Global Disinformation Index）联合创始人克莱尔·梅尔福德（Clare Melford）。同样被禁的还有欧盟前委员蒂埃里·布雷顿（Thierry Breton），他是欧盟《数字服务法案》（国务院称其为“奥威尔式”的审查范例）的主要架构师。