WASHINGTON, United States – The United States government is preparing to revoke the business and tourist visas of up to 200,000 foreign nationals who have applied for asylum after entering the country, marking what could become the largest single mass visa revocation in American history, according to official State Department documents.
The measure, coordinated between the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), targets non-immigrant B1 (business) and B2 (tourism) visas issued between 2016 and 2026 to individuals who subsequently filed protection claims with immigration authorities.
Okay News reports that the planned revocations will be executed on a rolling basis, screening visa records matched against affirmative asylum filings submitted to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott confirmed in a press statement.
US immigration officials noted that the cancellation of a visitor visa does not trigger immediate deportation for applicants whose asylum petitions remain actively under review; rather, individuals will lose their non-immigrant visitor classification while their claims proceed through the legal immigration system.
Defending the policy direction, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau stated that temporary entry categories should not serve as an entry route to bypass standard immigration processing.
“People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims,” Landau wrote in a public statement. “Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law.”
The initiative forms part of an expansive enforcement drive by the administration of President Donald Trump. Over the past 18 months, the State Department has revoked approximately 175,000 visas tied to criminal convictions, driving offences, and public security concerns, with legal advocacy organisations anticipating judicial challenges once the latest directive is formally implemented.
