Tech campaigner decries US ‘punishment’ after visa sanctions

Published
1
Imran Ahmed, CEO of Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British citizen, poses for a portrait January 2, 2026, in Washington, DC. — AFP
Imran Ahmed, CEO of Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British citizen, poses for a portrait January 2, 2026, in Washington, DC. — AFP

WASHINGTON: British tech campaigner Imran Ahmed on Friday decried a US visa ban as “punishment” for his organisation’s work combating disinformation and holding major online platforms accountable, saying that Washington’s actions amounted to “tyrannical behaviour.”

Ahmed, a US permanent resident, heads the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit watchdog that researches the harmful effects of online disinformation. He was among five European figures whom the State Department recently said would be denied visas.

The department accused the group of attempting to “coerce” tech platforms into censoring Americans’ viewpoints, a charge they reject. The European Union and several member states strongly condemned the US sanctions.

The US announcement came after the International Fact-Checking Network said last month it was “deeply concerned” by reports the State Department had instructed staff to deny visas to people engaged in fact-checking and content moderation.

This agency spoke with Imran Ahmed after he sued President Donald Trump’s administration in a New York court.

QUESTION: How do you interpret the US visa restrictions over “censorship” concerns?

ANSWER: This appears to be a punishment for my advocacy and for the research that CCDH does, looking into social media platforms, looking into AI platforms, identifying harms, informing the public, and then urging lawmakers and regulators, both in the US and globally, to take action.

That’s what the First Amendment is there to protect — our ability to speak, without fear or favor. However, in this instance, it does appear that I’m being punished precisely for my speech, which would be an act of censorship.

QUESTION: How do you seek to challenge the visa ban?

ANSWER: What we’ve done initially is take up a restraining order against the government to prevent them from taking any action against me, detaining me or arresting me, and that’s important, because previously, when the Trump administration has sought to cancel green cards for legal permanent residents, it has arrested them through ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

The first Trump administration was under no obligation to award me an extraordinary ability visa, and it did.

My green card (permanent residency) has been given to me because I’m married to a US citizen and I have American children now, and they have to abide by both the law and the constitution in how they treat me as a legal permanent resident, and that’s precisely why we’ve gone to court.

Published in Dawn, January 3rd, 2026

Opinion

Editorial

Perilous misstep
Updated 12 Oct, 2026

Perilous misstep

If the authorities felt terrorism was increasing in some tribal districts and adjoining areas, they could have limited themselves to imposing a targeted emergency under Article 232.
Import fraud
12 Oct, 2026

Import fraud

THE under-invoicing of imports from China is not an allegation. It is an open secret in Pakistan’s markets — one...
Paralysed prisons
12 Oct, 2026

Paralysed prisons

PAKISTAN’S overcrowded jails distort the intention of imprisonment — rehabilitation, education, and occupational...
Parliament’s place
Updated 11 Oct, 2026

Parliament’s place

In 2015, the parliament had decided to “maintain neutrality in the Yemen conflict so as to be able to play a proactive diplomatic role to end the crisis”.
Disturbing the peace
11 Oct, 2026

Disturbing the peace

THIS year’s Nobel Peace Prize is well-earned. The winner, South African jurist Dr Navi Pillay, has had an...