Power should never be trusted without control
En un momento en que la verificación de hechos es reencuadrada como censura, el gobierno de Estados Unidos ha comenzado a cerrar sus fronteras a periodistas e investigadores internacionales cuyo trabajo consiste precisamente en distinguir la verdad de la falsedad. La medida, que afecta a figuras como el excomisario europeo Thierry Breton y al fundador del Centro para Contrarrestar el Odio Digital Imran Ahmed, no es un accidente burocrático sino una señal deliberada sobre qué tipos de conocimiento serán tolerados. Como advirtió John Adams, el poder sin control no es gobierno sino arbitrariedad; y lo que está en juego hoy no es solo quién puede entrar al país, sino si las democracias son capaces de defenderse a sí mismas.
- La administración Trump utiliza criterios de visado para expulsar a investigadores de desinformación, redefiniendo su trabajo como 'censura' y convirtiendo la verificación de hechos en causa de exclusión.
- Al menos cinco figuras prominentes —entre ellas una excomisaria europea y fundadores de organizaciones contra el odio digital— han sido bloqueadas en la frontera o deportadas, interrumpiendo abruptamente sus vidas profesionales y personales.
- Una coalición de investigadores tecnológicos ha llevado el caso ante un tribunal federal, argumentando el 13 de mayo que la política viola la Primera y la Quinta Enmienda de la Constitución.
- El resultado judicial permanece incierto, pero el patrón histórico es inequívoco: prohibir la entrada a periodistas y académicos es una táctica característica de regímenes que temen el escrutinio más que la mentira.
- La pregunta que subyace al caso trasciende los visados: si el gobierno puede redefinir la verificación como supresión, ¿qué otras formas de expresión podrían ser criminalizadas mañana?
Estados Unidos ha comenzado a negar la entrada a periodistas e investigadores internacionales especializados en verificación de hechos y lucha contra la desinformación. La administración Trump aplica criterios migratorios que permiten rechazar a quienes sean considerados colaboradores en la 'censura de estadounidenses', una categoría que el presidente ha extendido sistemáticamente al fact-checking, tratando la comprobación de afirmaciones falsas no como periodismo sino como supresión.
Entre los afectados figuran Thierry Breton, excomisario europeo; Imran Ahmed, fundador del Centro para Contrarrestar el Odio Digital, quien contaba con residencia legal en el país; Clare Melford, investigadora británica al frente del Global Disinformation Index; y las cofundadoras alemanas de HateAid, Josephine Ballon y Anna-Lena von Hodenberg. Ante esta situación, una coalición de investigadores tecnológicos presentó una demanda judicial para revertir la medida.
El 13 de mayo, un abogado de la Coalición para la Investigación Tecnológica Independiente argumentó ante un juez federal que la política vulnera la libertad de expresión y el derecho de asociación garantizados por la Primera y la Quinta Enmienda. El fallo está pendiente, pero el contexto histórico habla por sí solo: vetar la entrada de periodistas y académicos es una táctica asociada a gobiernos autoritarios o a aquellos que avanzan en esa dirección.
La prohibición de visados a verificadores de hechos no es un episodio aislado, sino parte de un patrón más amplio en el que el aparato del Estado ha sido orientado hacia los intereses del ejecutivo, erosionando derechos civiles y desafiando normas internacionales. John Adams, el segundo presidente, sostenía que 'el poder nunca debe ser confiado sin control'; su convicción sobre la separación de poderes y el gobierno de las leyes resuena con urgencia en este momento.
Lo que el caso revela es una pregunta de fondo: si clasificar el fact-checking como censura basta para justificar la exclusión, ¿qué otras formas de expresión o asociación podrían ser redefinidas del mismo modo? Las democracias no sobreviven solo con reglas formales; requieren una defensa activa de ellas, y el futuro exigirá salvaguardas más robustas frente a la concentración del poder presidencial.
The United States has begun denying entry to international journalists and academics whose work centers on fact-checking and combating disinformation. The Trump administration is using visa criteria that permit rejection of anyone deemed to be collaborating in the "censorship of Americans"—a category the president has repeatedly applied to fact-checking itself, treating verification of false claims as a form of suppression rather than journalism.
The policy has affected at least five prominent researchers and journalists. Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner, was blocked. Imran Ahmed, who had legal residency in the country and founded the Center for Countering Digital Hate, was denied entry. Clare Melford, a British researcher who leads the Global Disinformation Index, faced the same barrier. Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, both German co-founders of HateAid, were also prevented from entering or remaining in the United States. The measure has drawn little attention in some quarters, but a coalition of technology researchers has filed suit to overturn it.
On May 13th, a lawyer representing the Coalition for Independent Technology Research argued before a federal judge that the policy violates the First Amendment's protection of free expression and the constitutional right to free association. The case also invokes the Fifth Amendment. The outcome remains pending, but the historical record is clear: barring journalists and scholars from entry is a tactic associated with authoritarian governments or those moving in that direction. It signals not confidence in the strength of one's position but fear of scrutiny.
The broader context matters. The current administration has deployed the machinery of the state—including the courts—to advance its own interests and those of the president's family. It has invaded and bombed countries while invoking emergency powers and disregarding international law. Within the United States, it has created an atmosphere of pressure on civil rights themselves. The visa ban on fact-checkers is one piece of a larger pattern.
John Adams, the second president, was known for his integrity and his passionate defense of what he called a "government of laws, not of men." He was direct about his convictions, sometimes to the point of being difficult. He believed, as he reportedly said, that "power should never be trusted without control." Adams has never received the historical prominence granted to Jefferson or others, but his insistence on constitutional restraint and the separation of powers speaks directly to the moment. The United States and the world lack precisely what Adams embodied: a leader committed to the rule of law over personal interest, willing to be inconvenient in defense of principle, and convinced that no executive should wield unchecked authority.
The visa denials raise a question that extends beyond the immediate case. If the government can prevent fact-checkers from entering the country by classifying their work as censorship, what other categories of speech or association might be redefined to justify exclusion? The lawsuit will determine whether the courts will enforce constitutional limits on this power. But the lesson is already apparent: democracies require not just formal rules but active defense of them, and the future will demand stronger safeguards against the concentration of presidential authority.
Citas Notables
Power should never be trusted without control— John Adams, second U.S. president
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that these particular people were denied visas? They could work from abroad.
Because the United States is where the power is. If you're trying to study disinformation in American politics, you need to be in America. You need access to networks, institutions, sources. Exile is exile, even if it's just a visa denial.
But Trump has called fact-checking censorship before. Isn't this just him being consistent with his rhetoric?
Consistency in rhetoric and consistency in using state power are different things. He can say what he wants. But when he uses visa law to enforce that view, he's moved from speech to action. That's the line.
The lawsuit is about the Fifth Amendment. Why that and not the First?
The Fifth Amendment protects due process—the right not to be deprived of liberty without fair procedure. The administration didn't give these people a hearing or explain the criteria clearly. It just said no. That's arbitrary power.
Is this actually new, or has the U.S. always done this?
The U.S. has excluded people before, but usually on security grounds or criminal history. Using visa law to silence critics or researchers—that's the move authoritarian governments make. It's not unprecedented globally. It's unprecedented here, which is why it matters.
What happens if the court rules against Trump?
The visa denials would likely be reversed, and these researchers could enter. But the real question is whether the ruling will constrain future administrations. A strong decision could protect press freedom. A weak one leaves the door open for the next president to try again.