Do U.S. immigration forms require phone call logs or detailed social media histories for entry?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. authorities have proposed making social‑media disclosure mandatory for many short‑term visitors: Customs and Border Protection’s Federal Register notice would require Visa Waiver/ESTA applicants to provide up to five years of social‑media history and additional “high‑value” data such as phone numbers used in the last five years and emails from the last ten years [1] [2]. Existing visa forms already collect social‑media handles for many visa applicants; the new CBP proposal would extend similar checks to millions of tourists who today use ESTA [3] [1].
1. What the proposal actually demands — and who it would affect
The rule notice filed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would make social‑media information a mandatory “data element” on the ESTA electronic travel authorization used by Visa Waiver Program travelers, asking applicants to provide social‑media identifiers covering the last five years; it would also expand collection of email addresses (last 10 years), phone numbers (last five years) and family details for many visitors [1] [4]. CBP’s change targets travelers from the roughly 40‑plus countries in the Visa Waiver Program, people who today get short stays without a traditional visa [3] [4].
2. How this compares to existing practice for visa seekers
This is not entirely new: immigrant and non‑immigrant visa applications have for years asked for social‑media identifiers, and State Department forms (DS‑160/DS‑260) required such information starting in 2019; the CBP move would extend similar mandatory checks to Visa Waiver entrants who previously only optionally listed social media [5] [3]. Reporting notes that USCIS and the State Department have already used social‑media screening in visa adjudications and that the 2025 administration broadened social‑media collection across multiple USCIS forms [5].
3. What proponents say and the national‑security framing
Officials present the change as an intelligence and identity‑verification measure: CBP frames social‑media and “high‑value” data collection as tools to better vet travelers and detect security or fraud risks. Coverage cites administration statements linking the expansion to executive orders and recent national‑security concerns that drove tighter traveler screening [2] [5].
4. Critics, civil‑liberties concerns and economic warnings
Civil‑liberties groups, travel organisations and some lawmakers warn the move chills free expression, risks discriminatory scrutiny, and could deter tourism — including concerns tied to major events such as the 2026 World Cup — with some travelers and travel groups already reporting reduced bookings after the announcement [6] [7] [8]. Privacy and free‑speech advocates say mandatory sweeping searches of five years of posts goes beyond fact‑checking and may subject innocuous speech to punitive action [6] [1].
5. Practical uncertainties and what the notice does not say
The Federal Register text and reporting state the requirement would ask for social‑media “from the last 5 years” but do not fully specify whether applicants must supply every post, every handle, passwords, screenshots, or which platforms or data fields are in scope — reporting notes the proposal lacks granular public detail on exactly what “social media” means in practice [4] [1]. Some outlets report CBP intends handles (identifiers) rather than passwords, but the implementation details remain open during the comment period [5] [9].
6. Timeline, rulemaking and legal pushback to watch
Media reporting says the proposal was posted to the Federal Register with a public comment window and an implementation date discussed in reporting (some outlets cite February 8 as a potential effective date), meaning the final shape could change after rulemaking and litigation risk exists from rights groups [3] [9]. Coverage shows similar policies have been challenged or refined in past administration transitions, so legal and administrative outcomes are uncertain [5] [6].
7. Advice for travelers and journalists covering this story
Travelers should monitor the Federal Register notice and official CBP/State Department guidance before assuming what to prepare; currently reporting confirms the proposal would make social‑media data mandatory for ESTA applicants and would expand collection of phone and email histories, but the exact submission format is not yet public [1] [4]. Journalists should track the formal Federal Register docket, public comments, and any litigation from privacy groups to capture implementation changes [5] [6].
Limitations: available sources do not mention whether CBP will process full content versus account identifiers in every case, nor do they detail precise technical submission steps — those specifics remain absent from current reporting and the proposal’s public summaries [4] [1].