The State Department is preparing a large-scale revocation of nonimmigrant visitor visas — specifically B-1 (business) and B-2 (tourism, family visits, medical treatment) — for people who entered the U.S. on those visas and later applied for asylum. Media reporting cites a figure of up to 200,000 visa holders subject to review. The revocations would cover visas issued between 2016 and 2026 and would be executed with the Department of Homeland Security.
Why the administration says it is doing this
State Department officials frame the exercise as enforcing the distinction between short-term visitor status and seeking long-term residence. A State Department spokesman, Tommy Pigott, said the department is "making clear that a visa is a privilege — not a right" and that obtaining a visa to seek asylum amounts to fraud, which can be grounds for revocation. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau also made public statements arguing asylum should not be used to "circumvent immigration law."
Reporting indicates the revocations would not happen all at once but on a rolling basis. The Department of Homeland Security would carry out the actual revocation actions once the State Department identifies relevant visa holders. Past State Department activity is cited in related coverage noting the department has revoked a large number of visas since the prior year, primarily tied to criminal arrests, but those specifics relate to earlier, separate revocation efforts.
The policy targets foreigners who were issued B-1 or B-2 visas for short visits and then filed for asylum after arriving in the United States. The visas under review were issued in a ten-year window (2016–2026). The reported total under review — up to 200,000 — is described by some outlets as the largest mass revocation in U.S. history.
This move follows a series of administrative actions aimed at reducing unlawful stays and tightening visa policies. The administration has previously suspended or tightened visa processing for certain categories and countries. Separate reporting also shows courts and other agencies have pushed back on some visa-related policies, including injunctions in related cases, suggesting legal challenges are likely for broad administrative revocations.