The U.S. State Department has revoked visas for more than 6,000 international students so far this year, as the administration responds to the wave of violent anti-Semitic agitation that swept college campuses after the October 7 terror attack. The push to revoke visas of misbehaving students comes alongside a State Department effort to more closely vet students applying to study abroad in the United States.

Each visa revoked by the State Department was either due to an overstay or some encounter with law enforcement, an agency spokesperson told Fox News. About 4,000 visas were revoked in connection with law-breaking, including assault, burglary, DUIs, and support for terrorism. The State Department pulled roughly 800 visas in connection to an assault.

The agency also pulled between 200 and 300 visas because the foreign student engaged in support for U.S.-designated terrorist groups like Hamas. In many cases, such support likely involved grotesque displays of anti-Semitism at rallies glorifying the terrorist activities committed on October 7, 2023. However, the State Department also said they even included cases of fundraising for terrorist entities.

The increased scrutiny is not confined to student visas alone. In total, the State Department has revoked 40,000 visas of all types so far this year, compared to 16,000 revoked during the same time frame under Biden. This represents a 150% increase in visa revocations, although the practice itself is not new.

A close reading of available reporting suggests that the Trump administration’s standard for revoking a visa in connection with criminal behavior requires much less than conviction of a crime. Thus, Fox News reported: “Those who had their student visas yanked due to assault — roughly 800 students — either faced arrest or charges stemming from assault, according to the State Department official.”

In the American criminal justice system, every defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence until their guilt is proven in open court. Those who “either faced arrest or charges” have not been proven guilty. In at least some cases, they may be entirely innocent of any crime. It is a miscarriage of justice (the principle of giving to each his due) to punish or penalize anyone for behavior of which they are innocent. At the same time, there are likely many people arrested or charged with a crime, who are in fact guilty, and who will be proven guilty in court. Before a trial, the administration cannot distinguish the accused who are guilty from the accused who are innocent, unless it becomes a court unto itself, which the Constitution does not allow.

In its defense, the Trump administration is grappling with the consequences of previous miscarriages of justice. The past 18 months have provided numerous high-profile examples of misbehavior by college students where laws were clearly violated, but nobody was held accountable. Whether through a cowardly university administration, or the misguided ideological notions of a local progressive prosecutor, all charges were either dropped or never filed. When people who should have been convicted of a crime were not, that is also a miscarriage of justice.

This puts the administration in a predicament. Situations like these remind us that governing is hard. Those without authority should be cautious of boasting that they could wield it better than current officeholders. Instead, Paul exhorts believers, we ought to pray for “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2).

As noted above, the State Department has paired visa revocations with greater scrutiny of the foreigners it allows into the United States. This includes “comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online [social media] presence,” for all student visa applicants, it announced in a June 18 press release.

This release also provided a rationale for the stricter oversight policy, which may help to square the circle regarding the justice of revoking visas of those arrested or charged with a crime, but not convicted. First, “a U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right.” Second, “Every visa adjudication is a national security decision. The United States must be vigilant … to ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests.”

This framing follows the direction of President Trump himself in his June 4 travel ban on countries with insufficient vetting safeguards. “The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests,” Trump argued. “The United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.”

In other words, the administration seeks to frame the issuance of foreign visas in relation to national security, not in relation to the standards of justice that hold sway in American courts of law.