SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — U.S. immigration officials are asking the public and federal agencies to comment on a proposal to collect social media handles from people applying for benefits such as green cards or citizenship, to comply with an executive order from President Donald Trump.

The March 5 notice raised alarms from immigration and free speech advocates because it appears to expand the government’s reach in social media surveillance to people already vetted and in the U.S. legally, such as asylum seekers, green card and citizenship applicants — and not just those applying to enter the country. That said, social media monitoring by immigration officials has been a practice for over a decade, since at least the second Obama administration and ramping up under Trump’s first term.

Below are some questions and answers on what the new proposal means and how it might expand social media surveillance.

What is the proposal?

The Department of Homeland Security issued a 60-day notice asking for public commentary on its plan to comply with Trump’s executive order titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The plan calls for “uniform vetting standards” and screening people for grounds of inadmissibility to the U.S., as well as identify verification and “national security screening.” It seeks to collect social media handles and the names of platforms, although not passwords.

The policy seeks to require people to share their social media handles when applying for U.S. citizenship, green card, asylum and other immigration benefits. The proposal is open to feedback from the public until May 5.

What is changing?

“The basic requirements that are in place right now is that people who are applying for immigrant and non-immigrant visas have to provide their social media handles,” said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, managing director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program at New York University. “Where I could see this impacting is someone who came into the country before visa-related social media handle collection started, so they wouldn’t have provided it before and now they’re being required to. Or maybe they did before, but their social media use has changed.”

“This fairly widely expanded policy to collect them for everyone applying for any kind of immigration benefit, including people who have already been vetted quite extensively,” she added.

What this points to — along with other signals the administration is sending such as detaining people and revoking student visas for participating in campus protests that the government deems antisemitic and sympathetic to the militant Palestinian group Hamas — Levinson-Waldman added, is the increased use of social media to “make these very high-stakes determinations about people.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service said the agency seeks to “strengthen fraud detection, prevent identity theft, and support the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible.”

“These efforts ensure that those seeking immigration benefits to live and work in the United States do not threaten public safety, undermine national security, or promote harmful anti-American ideologies,” the statement continued. USCIS estimates that the proposed policy change will affect about 3.6 million people.

How are social media accounts used now?

The U.S. government began ramping up the use of social media for immigration vetting in 2014 under then-President Barack Obama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. In late 2015, the Department of Homeland Security began both “manual and automatic screening of the social media accounts of a limited number of individuals applying to travel to the United States, through various non-public pilot programs,” the nonpartisan law and policy institute explains on its website.

In May 2017, the U.S. Department of State issued an emergency notice to increase the screening of visa applicants. Brennan, along with other civil and human rights groups, opposed the move, arguing that it is “excessively burdensome and vague, is apt to chill speech, is discriminatory against Muslims, and has no security benefit.”

Two years later, the State Department began collecting social media handles from “nearly all foreigners” applying for visas to travel to the U.S. — about 15 million people a year.

How is AI used?

Artificial intelligence tools used to comb through potentially millions of social media accounts have evolved over the past decade, although experts caution that such tools have limits and can make mistakes.

Leon Rodriguez, who served as the director of USCIS from 2014 to 2017 and now practices as an immigration attorney, said while AI could be used as a first screening tool, he doesn’t think “we’re anywhere close to where AI will be able to exercise the judgment of a trained fraud detection and national security officer” or that of someone in an intelligence agency.

“It’s also possible that I will miss stuff,” he added. “Because AI is still very much driven by specific search criteria and it’s possible that the search criteria won’t hit actionable content.”

What are the concerns?

“Social media is just a stew, so much different information — some of it is reliable, some of it isn’t. Some of it can be clearly attributed to somebody, some of it can’t. And it can be very hard to interpret,” Levinson-Waldman said. “So I think as a baseline matter, just using social media to make high-stakes decisions is quite concerning.”

Then there’s the First Amendment.

“It’s by and large established that people in the U.S. have First Amendment rights,” she said. This includes people who are not citizens. “And obviously, there are complicated ways that that plays out. There is also fairly broad authority for the government to do something like revoking somebody’s visa, if you’re not a citizen, then there’s steps that the government can take — but by and large, with very narrow exceptions, that cannot be on the grounds of speech that would be protected (by the First Amendment).”

Barbara Ortutay, The Associated Press

In New Mexico, police and prosecutors backed an effort to outlaw devices that convert pistols into machine guns. In Alabama, the governor made it a priority.

Lawmakers in both states — one led by Democrats, the other by Republicans — responded this year with new laws making so-called Glock switches illegal.

At least half of U.S. states now have similar laws prohibiting the possession of such devices, a list that has grown over the past decade as law enforcement officers have found more of the tiny yet powerful devices attached to guns.

States are mimicking federal law, which for for decades has generally prohibited machine guns and any parts that can transform semiautomatic weapons into automatic ones.

What does federal law say?

U.S. law defines a machine gun as a weapon that automatically fires more than one shot with a single pull of a trigger. The definition also includes any parts designed to convert a weapon into a machine gun.

Federal law prohibits possessing machine guns made after 1986, with some exceptions for law enforcement, the military and certain licensed dealers. Nearly all conversion devices are illegal because they were made more recently.

People convicted of possessing machine guns and conversion devices can face up to 10 years in prison.

What is a Glock switch?

A Glock switch is one type of a machine gun conversion device. It’s a metal or plastic piece, about the size of a coin, that attaches to the back of Glock pistol, a brand that is popular with both police and criminals. The switch interferes with a gun’s internal trigger components so that it fires continuously when the trigger is pulled back and held.

A gun outfitted with a switch can fire dozens of bullets in mere seconds, similar to a factory-made machine gun.

Other brands of pistols that mimic Glocks also can be converted to machine guns. So can some semiautomatic rifles. Such conversion devices also are referred to as auto sears, selector switches or chips.

What does the data indicate?

The use of auto sears spiked in the past decade, partly because they can be made inexpensively with 3D printers.

From 2012 to 2016, just 814 machine gun conversion parts were taken into custody by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That swelled to 5,454 from 2017-2021.

In January, former President Joe Biden’s administration said 12,360 suspected machine gun conversion devices had been recovered in the U.S. and submitted to the ATF during a roughly 34-month period ending in October 2024.

Five states including Florida, Illinois, Texas, Montana and North Dakota accounted for nearly half that total.

What have states been doing?

Alabama is the latest state to outlaw Glock switches. A law signed this month by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey makes possessing parts designed to convert pistols into machine guns a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The bipartisan push in Alabama came after police said they believed conversion devices had been used in fatal shootings, including one in September that killed four and injured 17 people outside a Birmingham lounge.

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a law in February making possession of a weapon conversion device a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

Similar legislation passed the New Jersey General Assembly last week and now heads to the Senate. Bills also are pending in other states.

Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed a law last year making auto sears illegal. But Youngkin vetoed legislation this past week that would have broadened an existing ban on “trigger activators” to cover additional devices that increase firing rates of semiautomatic weapons.

What do gun control advocates want?

Groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety say state laws provide a sometimes easier alternative to federal prosecution for possessing Glock switches. But they want to go further.

Everytown for Gun Safety is backing legislation in California, Maryland and New York that would make it illegal to sell pistols that could be transformed into machine guns.

“That really puts the pressure where it belongs — on the manufactures that are making money off of guns that they know can be readily turned into machine guns,” said Nick Suplina, senior vice president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety.

Several cities and states including Baltimore, Chicago, Minnesota and New Jersey have sued Glock for making pistols that can be converted by others to automatic weapons.

What do gun-rights groups say?

The National Rifle Association notes U.S. attorneys already can prosecute people for misusing gun conversion devices without the need for state laws.

Gun Owners of America, another gun-rights group, contends people should have a Second Amendment right to own machine guns. State laws against machine gun conversation devices are “duplicative” and “pure virtue signaling,” said Aidan Johnston, federal affairs director for Gun Owners of America.

He said guns converted to fire automatically can have practical uses like eliminating large groups of feral hogs that are destroying land.

“Just because you put that on your firearm doesn’t mean that you are a violent criminal or that you necessarily are a dangerous person,” Johnston said.

David A. Lieb, The Associated Press

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump used contentiousness around transgender people’s access to sports and bathrooms to fire up conservative voters and sway undecideds. And in his first months back in office, Trump has pushed the issue further, erasing mention of transgender people on government websites and passports and trying to remove them from the military.

It’s a contradiction of numbers that reveals a deep cultural divide: Transgender people make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, but they have become a major piece on the political chess board — particularly Trump’s.

For transgender people and their allies — along with several judges who have ruled against Trump in response to legal challenges — it’s a matter of civil rights for a small group. But many Americans believe those rights had grown too expansive.

The president’s spotlight is giving Monday’s Transgender Day of Visibility a different tenor this year.

“What he wants is to scare us into being invisible again,” said Rachel Crandall Crocker, the executive director of Transgender Michigan who organized the first Day of Visibility 16 years ago. “We have to show him we won’t go back.”

So why has this small population found itself with such an outsized role in American politics?

The focus on transgender people is part of a long-running campaign

Trump’s actions reflect a constellation of beliefs that transgender people are dangerous, are men trying to get access to women’s spaces or are pushed into gender changes that they will later regret.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and other major medical groups have said that gender-affirming treatments can be medically necessary and are supported by evidence.

Zein Murib, an associate professor of political science and women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Fordham University, said there has been a decades-old effort “to reinstate Christian nationalist principles as the law of the land” that increased its focus on transgender people after a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage nationwide. It took a few years, but some of the positions gained traction.

One factor: Proponents of the restrictions lean into broader questions of fairness and safety, which draw more public attention.

Sports bans and bathroom laws are linked to protecting spaces for women and girls, even as studies have found transgender women are far more likely to be victims of violence. Efforts to bar schools from encouraging gender transition are connected to protecting parental rights. And bans on gender-affirming care rely partly on the idea that people might later regret it, though studies have found that to be rare.

Since 2020, about half the states passed laws barring transgender people from sports competitions aligning with their gender and have banned or restricted gender-affirming medical care for minors. At least 14 have adopted laws restricting which bathrooms transgender people can use in certain buildings.

In February, Iowa became the first state to remove protections for transgender people from civil rights law.

It’s not just political gamesmanship. “I think that whether or not that’s a politically viable strategy is second to the immediate impact that that is going to have on trans people,” Fordham’s Murib said.

Many voters think transgender rights have gone too far

More than half of voters in the 2024 election — 55% — said support for transgender rights in the United States has gone too far, according to AP VoteCast. About 2 in 10 said the level of support has been about right, and a similar share said support hasn’t gone far enough.

Nevertheless, AP VoteCast also found voters were split on laws banning gender-affirming medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or hormone therapy, for minors. Just over half were opposed to these laws, while just under half were in favor.

Trump voters were overwhelmingly likely to say support for transgender rights has gone too far, while Kamala Harris’ voters were more divided. About 4 in 10 Harris voters said support for transgender rights has not gone far enough, while 36% said it’s been about right and about one-quarter said it’s gone too far.

A survey this year from the Pew Research Center found Americans, including Democrats, have become more slightly more supportive of requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex at birth and more supportive on bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors since 2022. Most Democrats still oppose those kinds of measures, though.

Leor Sapir, a fellow at Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank, says Trump’s and Republicans’ positions have given them a political edge.

“They are putting their opponents, their Democratic opponents, in a very unfavorable position by having to decide between catering to their progressive, activist base or their median voter,” he said.

Not everyone agrees.

“People across the political spectrum agree that in fact, the major crises and major problems facing the United States right now is not the existence and civic participation of trans people,” said Olivia Hunt, director of federal policy for Advocates for Trans Equality.

And in the same election that saw Trump return to the presidency, Delaware voters elected Sarah McBride, the first transgender member of Congress.

The full political fallout remains to be seen

Paisley Currah, a political science professor at the City University of New York, said conservatives go after transgender people in part because they make up such a small portion of the population.

“Because it’s so small, it’s relatively unknown,” said Currah, who is transgender. “And then Trump has kind of used trans to signify what’s wrong with the left. You know: ‘It’s just too crazy. It’s too woke.’”

But Democratic politicians also know the population is relatively small, said Seth Masket, director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, who is writing a book about the GOP.

“A lot of Democrats are not particularly fired up to defend this group,” Masket said, citing polling.

For Republicans, the overall support of transgender rights is evidence they are out of step with the times.

“The Democrat Party continues to find themselves on the wrong side of overwhelmingly popular issues, and it proves just how out of touch they are with Americans,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella said.

Some of that message may be getting through. In early March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, launched his new podcast by speaking out against allowing transgender women and girls competing in women’s and girls sports.

And several other Democratic officials have said the party spends too much effort supporting transgender rights. Others, including U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, have said they oppose transgender athletes in girls and women’s sports.

Jay Jones, the student government president at Howard University and a transgender woman, said her peers are largely accepting of transgender people.

“The Trump administration is trying to weaponize people of the trans experience … to help give an archenemy or a scapegoat,” she said. But “I don’t think that is going to be as successful as the strategy as he thinks that it will be.”

___

Associated Press polling editor Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux contributed to this article. Jesse Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Geoff Mulvihill And Jesse Bedayn, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most employees at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally created and funded think tank now taken over by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, received email notices of their mass firing, the latest step in the Trump administration’s government downsizing.

The emails, sent to personal accounts because most staff members had lost access to the organization’s system, began going out about 9 p.m. Friday, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisal.

One former senior official at the institute said among those spared were several in the human resources department and a handful of overseas staffers who have until April 9 to return to the United States. The organization has about 300 people.

Others retained for now are regional vice presidents who will be working with the staff in their areas to return to the U.S., according to one employee who was affected.

An executive order last month from President Donald Trump targeted the organization, which seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, and three other agencies for closure. Board members, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and the institute’s president were fired. Later, there was a standoff between employees who blocked DOGE members from entering the institute’s headquarters near the State Department. DOGE staff gained access in part with the help of the Washington police.

A lawsuit ensued, and U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell chastised DOGE representatives for their behavior but did not reinstate the board members or allow employees to return to the workspace.

A White House spokeswoman, Anna Kelly, said in an email Saturday that the institute “has failed to deliver peace” and that Trump “is carrying out his mandate to eliminate bloat and save taxpayer dollars.”

The letter to employees said that as of Friday, “your employment with us will conclude,” according to one longtime employee who shared part of the communication. A second email, obtained by the AP, said the terminations were at the direction of the president.

Workers were given until April 7 to clear out their desks.

George Foote, a former institute lawyer fired this month who is with one of the firms providing counsel in the current lawsuit, said lawyers were consulting Saturday to discuss possible next steps. He said employees are not part of the pending lawsuit, so they would have to file a separate case.

___

Associated Press writer Ellen Knickmeyer contributed to this report.

Gary Fields And Matthew Lee, The Associated Press