Sponsors
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Denies and revokes student visas and nonimmigrant F/M status for noncitizens who engage in defined antisemitic conduct that the Secretary of State finds risks serious adverse foreign policy consequences. The bill adopts the Department of State’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism and treats violent acts or providing material support for such acts as prohibited conduct that triggers visa denial, cancellation, or revocation. The law applies to applicants for and holders of F and M student visas, directing the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke visas when the specified conduct is found, and it amends the immigration statute to bar affected aliens from receiving or retaining F/M status.
The Secretary of State must revoke or deny a visa under subparagraph (F) or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for any alien who, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, engages in prohibited antisemitic conduct and is determined to pose potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA.
Defines the term "antisemitism" to mean the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition adopted May 26, 2016, as adopted by the Department of State, including the contemporary examples identified therein.
Defines "prohibited antisemitic conduct" as either (A) engaging in a physical act of violence, vandalism, or harassment targeting a Jewish individual, their property, a community institution, or religious facility, with intent to intimidate or harm based on Jewish identity or affiliation; or (B) providing material support (including funding, organizing, or inciting) to a person, knowing that person intended to use such support to engage in the acts described in (A).
The determination that an alien "poses potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences" must be made by the Secretary of State pursuant to the standard in section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Add a new subsection (s) to Section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) titled Terms of nonimmigrant status for students.
Last progress April 10, 2025 (9 months ago)
Introduced on April 10, 2025 by Nicole Malliotakis
Primary effects
Noncitizen students on F-1 and M-1 visas: Face denial, cancellation, or revocation of visas or nonimmigrant status if found to have engaged in conduct that meets the bill's definition of antisemitism and that risks serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Revocation can interrupt study, force departure, or end status protections.
Department of State and consular officers: Responsible for applying the IHRA definition and determining whether conduct triggers mandatory denial/revocation; may require new guidance, training, and case-processing procedures.
Institutions of higher education and schools: May see enrolled international students lose status; schools may need to respond to incidents, coordinate with federal authorities, or assist affected students with immigration consequences.
Secondary effects and legal/policy considerations
Speech and protest: The IHRA definition is broader than just violent conduct in some applications; adoption into statute may raise concerns about how expressive or protest activities are assessed, potentially creating chilling effects on student speech depending on implementation.
Due process and review: The bill mandates visa/status action when conditions are met but does not specify detailed procedural safeguards or appeals; that gap could lead to administrative or judicial challenges over evidentiary standards and review rights.
Diplomatic and foreign policy consequences: The statutory trigger references "serious adverse foreign policy consequences," a discretionary and potentially subjective standard that couples visa policy to foreign relations judgments.
Enforcement burden and resource needs: Implementation will fall to consular and DHS/immigration systems; absent new funding or guidance, agencies may face operational strain and increased caseloads.
Litigation risk: Affected individuals or advocacy organizations may challenge specific denials/revocations on administrative law, constitutional, or statutory grounds, particularly where the conduct involved expressive activity or where procedural safeguards are limited.