The Trump administration is accused of weaponising secret visa revocations to punish foreign critics and reward political allies.
According to the New York Times, the allegations involve foreign leaders, judges, journalists and lawmakers, including Costa Rican politician Johana Obando and two Panamanian figures who criticised agreements with the United States.
The report describes a foreign-policy tool that is difficult to scrutinise because visa records are confidential.
Critics argue that the administration is using that secrecy to make visa access a form of diplomatic leverage while the State Department said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other US officials have broad authority to cancel visas 'whenever and wherever.'
Earlier US administrations also revoked visas, but the stated reasons were generally linked to national security or corruption. During Joe Biden's presidency, officials used the so-called 'Engel List' to restrict entry for Central American officials accused of corruption or anti-democratic conduct.
According to a former State Department official cited by The Times, that effort was discontinued after Donald Trump returned to office. At least three senior Salvadoran officials previously viewed by the Biden administration as too corrupt or anti-democratic to receive visas reportedly benefited after Nayib Bukele, El Salvador's president, aligned himself closely with Trump.
The report did not provide a public tally of all such cases, in part because the government does not release comprehensive visa records. John Feeley, a career diplomat and former US ambassador, described the alleged shift in unusually direct terms.
'No recent American administration ever did this kind of open attack on freedom of expression,' Feeley said. 'A congressman or a prosecutor without a U.S. visa…is somebody who is flying with a broken wing.'
The argument is not simply about travel. For politicians, judges and prosecutors whose work involves relations with Washington, losing access to the United States can carry a practical and symbolic cost. It may limit meetings, weaken diplomatic standing and signal that public criticism could bring consequences.
That is the point Obando says she took from the cancellation of both her personal and diplomatic visas. 'It is a way of intimidating decision makers to benefit the United States,' the Costa Rican lawmaker said. Her account remains an allegation about motive.
The Panama case offers the clearest example described in the reporting. Former President Martín Torrijos and presidential candidate Ricardo Lombana said in June 2025 that their US visas had been revoked after they spoke against agreements between Panama and the Trump administration. Torrijos led Panama from 2004 to 2009, while Lombana was a lawyer who finished second in the country's previous presidential election.
Torrijos said the move extended beyond his personal circumstances and warned that it could be read as a message to other Panamanians who questioned their government's dealings with Washington. The revocations followed months of tension over Trump's demands concerning the Panama Canal and later security arrangements between the two countries.
The State Department has not publicly accepted that criticism was the reason for those decisions. Its position, as reported by The Times, is that senior officials possess wide discretion over visa cancellations. That legal authority is broad, but the dispute centres on how it is being exercised and whether the process is being applied consistently.
Ana María Méndez Dardón of the Washington Office on Latin America said the administration was abandoning earlier standards. 'Corruption, human rights violations or judicial interference no longer matter,' she said.
The administration has offered a competing rationale in other visa cases. On 11 August, the State Department said it had revoked more than 175,000 visas under Trump, mostly over criminal accusations including drug offences, driving under the influence, assault, sexual assault, child abuse and fraud. It also cited alleged attempts to abuse the immigration system.