Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias Claims US Revoked Visa Over Trump Criticism Amid Policy Shift

WASHINGTON, DC – Former Costa Rican President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Oscar Arias, announced on Tuesday that the United States had revoked his U.S. visa, a development he linked directly to his prior criticisms of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Arias, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end civil wars in Central America, stated that the revocation came just several weeks after he had publicly criticized Donald Trump on social media. In one notable instance, Arias had likened the former U.S. president to a “Roman emperor,”

Visa Revocation and US Policy Shift

The timing of the visa revocation coincides with a newly articulated policy directive from the U.S. State Department regarding visa eligibility. According to information available on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, reporting from Washington, DC by Graig Graziosi, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved a cable on March 25 that was disseminated to all U.S. overseas missions.

The cable reportedly stipulated that visa applicants could face denial if their social media posts or other actions were deemed to suggest a “hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture (including government, institutions, or founding principles).” This specific language appears to broaden the criteria under which the U.S. government can deny or revoke visas, potentially impacting individuals based on their expressed opinions or political commentary.

Secretary Rubio’s Recent Actions

The policy outlined in the March 25 cable follows recent public statements made by Secretary Rubio. The previous week, Rubio had reportedly stated that he had signed more than 300 letters revoking the visas of various students and visitors. These revocations, according to Rubio, were directed at individuals deemed to hold objectionable foreign policy views or who had participated in criminal activities. The inclusion of “objectionable foreign policy views” as a criterion for visa revocation signals a more assertive stance by the U.S. government in regulating who is permitted entry based on perceived attitudes and opinions, even if not directly related to national security threats or criminal conduct.

Context of Arias’s Criticism

Oscar Arias’s criticism of Donald Trump had seemingly occurred within the context of broader political commentary concerning his own country’s government. Arias had reportedly written commentary that appeared to criticize the current Costa Rican President, Rodrigo Chaves, specifically regarding Chaves’ apparent willingness to cooperate with the Trump administration. Arias’s public remarks have often carried significant weight internationally due to his status as a former head of state and Nobel laureate, making his social media commentary a matter of public record and diplomatic interest.

Implications for Diplomacy and Free Expression

The decision to revoke the visa of a prominent international figure like Oscar Arias, particularly one known for his peace advocacy, raises questions about the intersection of U.S. immigration policy, diplomatic relations, and principles of free expression. Critics may argue that using visa revocation as a tool against foreign political figures for critical commentary could be seen as retaliatory and potentially chilling to open discourse.

The State Department’s new directive, approved by Secretary Rubio, formalizes a policy that appears to allow for visa denials based on subjective interpretations of an individual’s attitude as expressed through their public statements or online activity. This approach contrasts with traditional grounds for visa denial, which typically focus on national security risks, criminal history, or immigration violations.

As of the reporting on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, at 18:58 BST, the U.S. State Department had not provided specific public comment directly addressing the revocation of Oscar Arias’s visa, beyond the general policy framework outlined in the March 25 cable and Secretary Rubio’s prior statements. The case is likely to be watched closely by international observers, governments, and advocates for free speech, assessing its potential impact on the ability of foreign figures to express opinions critical of U.S. policy or leaders without fear of reprisal affecting their travel status.