Deported Over a JD Vance Meme
11:43 Share

At Sierra, discover top workout gear at incredible prices, which might lead to another discovery. Your headphones haven't been connected this whole time. Awkward. Discover top brands at unexpectedly low prices. Sierra, let's get moving.

Should the U.S. government be allowed to deport someone over a meme? Welcome back to my weekly series, Free Speech Friday, where we discuss issues related to digital censorship and the importance of protecting free speech and free expression online.

Today, I want to talk to you guys about a crazy case that went viral this week and that you might have seen in the news. On June 11th, 21-year-old Norwegian tourist Mads Mikkelsen arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport, excited to explore the United States. His plan was to see some friends in New York City and Austin before beating up with his mom to tour the national park.

As Mickelson waited in line to pass through customs, however, he was pulled aside by Border Patrol. They detained him and subjected him to an extensive interrogation where he was questioned about drug trafficking, terrorist plots, and right-wing extremism. He was placed in a holding cell and threatened with a $5,000 fine if he didn't unlock his phone.

Mickelson handed over his phone to the agents and he said they immediately zoomed in on a very specific meme. The image was a version of the JD Vance Pouise meme that went viral in March after Vance's meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Mickelson's version of the meme featured an image of JD Vance with a giant distorted bald head against a bright blue background.

Shortly after Customs reviewed the meme, Mickelson was deported. Border Patrol agents put him on a flight back to Norway, and after arriving back home, he gave an extended interview to his hometown newspaper, claiming that immigration officials denied him entry into the United States after discovering the popular meme saved on his phone. Homeland Security was quick to respond online. The official Customs and Border Patrol Twitter account posted, Fact check,

False. Mads Mikkelsen was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons. It was for admitting drug use. Mikkelsen said that he was questioned over drug use and border control officials seemed to take issue of a photo that he had of himself with a homemade wooden pipe. But he said that is not why he was deported.

Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Trisha McLaughlin also posted about the incident. She posted an image of a Daily Mail article and said, claims that Mads Mikkelsen was denied entry because of a J.D. Vance meme are false. Political satire, which includes memes mocking public officials, falls under the heart of protected speech in the United States. And the idea that a meme about a U.S. politician could be used as pretense for denying someone entry into the U.S. is deeply troubling. It's

It's still also completely unclear why Mickelson was actually targeted for advanced screening to begin with. Though the government is claiming that this wasn't political, Mickelson's deportation also occurred amid a wave of seemingly ideologically driven detainments and deportations. Trump has effectively transformed the entire federal government into an immigration enforcement agency and given DHS wide flexibility to treat every foreign born person visiting the United States like a probable criminal threat.

significant departure to how Customs and Border Patrol was previously run. And it's led to many U.S. born American activists to raise concern over speech implications and the chilling effect that this is going to have on activists, journalists and other political dissidents. In April, DHS announced that its agents would begin screening immigrant social media accounts for alleged anti-Semitic activity. Trump and the government has used the pretense of cracking down on anti-Semitism to silence lawful speech and attack journalists and activists.

What the government now considers anti-Semitic includes any criticism of Israel's assault on Gaza or any advocacy for Palestinian rights. Even supporting and endorsing Palestinian aid organizations or UN-affiliated groups is now being treated as terror activity under these more restrictive laws. All student visa applications entering the U.S. must also now change the privacy settings on their social media profiles to public.

A State Department cable recently told diplomats to thoroughly review any and all social media profiles belonging to students for, quote, any indication of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government institutions or founding principles of the United States. And again,

Again, like most things with the government, they don't actually mean what they say. Hostility towards the US government or hostility towards founding principles of the United States could literally be something as benign as a joke about our legal system or seemingly a JD Vance meme. Reports of increased denials, detentions, and heightened security of visitors by DHS agents

have skyrocketed in recent months. In March, a French researcher was denied entry into the U.S. after Border Patrol agents found a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy on his phone. After this, a French minister publicly criticized the U.S. for their crackdowns on free speech and expressions.

Just last month, Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who by the way is a completely US citizen, was detained at the border for over an hour and questioned relentlessly about his political beliefs. He was asked about protected journalistic activities like who he's interviewed and his political opinions.

He was questioned over whether or not he'd interviewed Hamas, Houthis, or Hezbollah members. He was also asked about his opinions on Trump and Israel and asked about his history of getting banned on Twitch. Piker said, quote, they straight up tried to get something out of me that they could use to basically detain me permanently. The agent kept saying stuff like, do you like Hamas? Do you support Hamas? Do you think Hamas is a terror group or a resistance group?

I kept repeating the same statement over and over again, Piker said. I kept saying, I'm on the side of the civilians. I want the endless bloodshed to end. I'm a pacifist. I want all wars to end, which is insane because up until this moment, if you were to say that as an American citizen, you stand 10 toes down with Hamas or you stand 10 toes down with the Houthis, they can't deny you entry to the country, but

And just last week, an Australian writer was sent back to Melbourne after DHS agents in Los Angeles questioned him about his views on the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It's gotten to the point now where major U.S. media outlets are advising even U.S. citizens to travel with burner phones or be careful about what they say online and in public.

This type of targeting at the border creates an undeniable chilling effect. Already, activists who are critical of our government are nervous to leave the country given the crackdowns happening on speech. Detaining U.S. citizens over speech, especially a political commentator, journalist, a scientist, or even students, allows border control to become a tool of political intimidation.

As Piker said on stream following his detention, the reason they're doing this is to try to create an environment of fear, to try to get people like myself or others who would be in my shoes that don't have the same level of security to shut the F up. In a functioning democracy, public figures and journalists are supposed to be able to criticize the government without fear of retaliation. That criticism is a

vital in holding power to account. When authorities start treating political beliefs like security threats, it sends a loud and chilling message to anyone expressing themselves online, especially those with a platform that they also might be targeted. The crackdowns over speech at the border have already led to a slew of countries, including China, Denmark, and Finland, to issue travel warnings advising their citizens to reconsider traveling to the United States and warning them that if they do and if they said

the wrong thing online, they may risk harassment or violence from our authorities. I think this

this is all deeply concerning because like, yes, foreign visitors to the United States do not enjoy the same level of First Amendment protections as US citizens, especially when they're like at the airport trying to enter the country. Authorities do have sweeping powers at the border and non-citizens can legally be detained entry based solely on content on their phones. But the US has historically not rejected average citizens at the border or detained US citizens over what I'd call relatively benign speech challenging the government and foreign policy.

Today's border enforcement also wields unprecedented powers of surveillance. As I've talked about in other videos, law enforcement and the government are working with companies like Palantir to create these vast digital surveillance systems to track and capture problematic speech online.

U.S. law does allow for deeper searches at the border without a warrant or probable cause under what's known as the border search exception. This means agents can basically inspect luggage or digital devices of people at the border without suspicion. But the courts have begun to challenge how far that scope stretches when phones are involved. In one recent case, for example, the Fourth Circuit ruled that forensic searches of a digital device like a

cell phone does require reasonable suspicion even at the border although I will say given cpb's track record I feel like they could just make up any kind of like reasonable suspicion and search someone's device also when I was looking into this I found that other courts have

upheld the suspicionless scanning of digital devices. So until the Supreme Court clarifies things, the rules remain pretty inconsistent and murky. And if you're wondering like how and why was this random Norwegian 21 year old being asked about his opinions on politics or being forced to show government agents his like political memes, Customs and Border Patrol policies do allow officers to question travelers about religion or political ideology without restraint.

And a foreign-born person who declines to answer these types of questions could just be denied entry to the U.S. because of it. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a warning to non-citizen visitors, letting them know that they can refuse certain questions, but doing so could ultimately get them delayed entry or provoke further scrutiny.

U.S. citizens or permanent residents cannot technically be denied entry for refusing to answer questions about their politics, but this kind of broad political and ideologically driven probing that's now becoming routine immigration questioning can easily force political views into the equation. Basically, it's just going to become easier and easier for Border Patrol agents to force people to answer questions about their political beliefs when they're trying to get into the U.S., whether you're a citizen or not.

I think Mickelson's account and others like it show how border officials are effectively hollowing out the free speech protections of everyone who now passes through our borders. I'm really worried that, you know, first a meme mocking a public figure like J.D. Vance will be treated as a threat at the border. And next, they'll try to make similar arguments outside the confines of U.S. airports. The fact that travelers are now having to sanitize their devices before entering the United States or are thinking twice about what they're saying online is

is undeniably leading to more self-censorship of ideas and expression. And just ordinary travelers entering into the US, by the way, that get detained have no standard appeal process for detained entry and explanations that they're giving, case in point with this Norwegian guy, are incredibly vague. If you get detained,

an explanation at all, by the way. You kind of have to just read the tea leaves. Agents aren't required to document why someone was refused entry to the US, and so most travelers will never know for sure exactly why they were detained, harassed, or deported. And this, again, chills speech. It makes it so that people second-guess everything that they say and post online.

And despite these growing concerns and seemingly escalating incidents, border control remains a heavily guarded government function. Policies authorized under executive orders give the president sweeping power to bar entry to pretty much anyone deemed a security threat. This includes people targeted for their political views. Overall, I think the US is leaning further into censorship of political speech and the borders are just the beginning.

Free speech thrives on the free and open exchange of ideas, especially online. And this includes potentially offensive speech, speech that's critical of power, and humor. And again, we'll likely never know exactly 100% why Mickelson was deported, but I think the fact that these incidents keep piling up and all have similar through lines should be a major cause for concern.

I think that without clear legal protections for speech at our border and elsewhere, we risk chipping away even further at self-expression. We'll also unintentionally be preventing more people who value free speech and free expression from coming to America.

That's it for this week's show. Don't forget to subscribe to my tech and online culture newsletter, usermag.co to support my work. That's usermag.co where I write about all of these issues and more. And if there's a topic that you'd like to see me cover on Free Speech Friday, by the way, please reach out or leave a note in the comments. Next week is the 4th of July. So Power User and Free Speech Friday will probably be off. I haven't actually decided, but I'm probably going to take a break. But I'll be back the week after with a brand new episode of Free Speech Friday. Thanks for watching and see you soon.