Page created
First version
640 words9 sources
Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Institutions institutions/state-department
Page history
Every change to the U.S. Department of State page: what changed, when it went live, and how it was reviewed.
Changes across the whole site →Lifecycle
Oct 28, 2026 – today · select a mark to jump to itChanges
- AI review Review 3 of 3
Reviewed: 3 findings — 2 fixed, 1 dismissed
Bias 2Timeline consistency 1Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Show changes Hide changes
BiasBefore “Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the policy”
After “The department said the review "will ensure we are properly screening every single person attempting to visit our country." Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the policy”
Why: The student-visa social media screening paragraph gives a civil-liberties critic's assessment but no statement of the department's own rationale beyond the screening guidance.
BiasSee all 3 findings in the review reportBefore “A counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association said that without”
After “The department said the review was meant to ensure that "applicants do not intend to cause harm to Americans or threaten U.S. interests," and a spokesperson called a visa "a privilege, not a right." A counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association said that without”
Why: The foreign-journalist visa screening paragraph closes on an immigration lawyer's criticism with no statement of the department's rationale.
- Fix pass Review 2 of 3
Fix pass: 2 findings — 1 fixed, 1 dismissed
Bias 1Timeline consistency 1Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Show changes Hide changes
BiasSee all 2 findings in the review reportBefore “On 28 May 2025 Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a visa restriction policy covering foreign officials and others the department judges "complicit in censoring Americans," citing foreign authorities' demands that U.S. platforms apply their content rules globally and threats of arrest over posts made on U.S. soil.”
After “On 28 May 2025 Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a visa restriction policy covering foreign officials and others the department judges "complicit in censoring Americans," citing foreign authorities' demands that U.S. platforms apply their content rules globally and threats of arrest over posts made on U.S. soil. [Unchanged. Added to the screening paragraphs: "Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the policy "makes a censor of every consular officer, and it will inevitably chill legitimate political speech both inside and outside the United States."" and "A counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association said that without "clear, transparent standards, there's a risk their visa decisions could be based on something very subjective.""]”
Why: The entry gives the administration's stated rationale for the 2025-2026 visa-restriction and social-media-screening policies (this paragraph, plus the student-visa, H-1B, and journalist-visa screening paragraphs) with no critical or dissenting perspective, even though such screening of students and foreign journalists drew documented criticism from press-freedom and civil-liberties groups. By contrast, the entry's treatment of the Global Engagement Center/R/FIMI closure includes both sides — Rubio's critical quote about the office and a rebuttal ('Officials who had worked at the center disputed that account'). The uneven inclusion of counter-context creates an asymmetry: one set of actions is presented with both official justification and pushback, while the newer screening policies are presented only through the department's own framing.
- AI review Review 1 of 3
Reviewed: 3 findings — 1 fixed, 2 open
Bias 1Factual accuracy 1Labeling 1Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Show changes Hide changes
LabelingSee all 3 findings in the review reportBefore “The department has run offices aimed at countering foreign propaganda and disinformation abroad, most prominently the Global Engagement Center.”
After “**Information programs**: The department has run offices aimed at countering foreign propaganda and disinformation — deliberately false or misleading information spread to deceive — abroad, most prominently the Global Engagement Center.”
Why: "Disinformation" is a term of art and is used here, and again in the politicalRole frontmatter field ("disputes over online speech and disinformation"), in the project's own voice without a gloss or attribution. The page does later quote former GEC officials describing the office's work as concerning "foreign disinformation campaigns," which could serve as the page's one attributed/glossed use — but it comes after two bare uses rather than establishing the term first. Consider moving or adding a brief gloss (e.g., "disinformation — deliberately false or misleading information spread to deceive") on first use so later plain uses are supported.