Travelling to the USA for New Zealanders could look very different in the future, with US President Donald Trump's administration proposing to make visa-exempt tourists disclose their social media history, phone numbers, family members' details and biometric information.
On Wednesday (New Zealand time), a notice was published by the US Customs and Border Protection on the Federal Register (this is the daily journal of the US Government where they share public notices and government agency rules).
The proposal outlined how 42 countries who currently do not need a visa to enter the United States would have to share the past five years of their social media history and "high value data elements."
This includes:
- Phone numbers used in the last five years
- Email addresses used in the last ten years
- IP addresses and metadata from electronically submitted photos
- Family members’ names (parents, children, spouse and sibling)
- Family members’ dates of birth, places of birth and their residencies
- Family phone numbers used in the last five years
- biometric information (face, fingerprint, DNA and iris)
- Business phone numbers used in the last five years
- Business email addresses used in the last ten years
Visa-exempt countries include New Zealand as well as Australia, France, Britain and Japan.
The ABC reported that people from visa-exempt countries have been able to apply for a waiver, called the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), “on which the provision of social media history is optional”.
“Under the proposed new rules, the inclusion of five years' worth of social media data would also become a mandatory part of ESTA applications,” the ABC reported.
Travellers from countries where visas are required, have been sharing this type of information since 2019, the ABC reported.
The public and affected agencies have 60 days to comment on the proposal put forth by Trump's Administration.
US has the right to set own policy, Seymour says
Asked about the proposal on Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said the US had the right to set its own policy.
"All I'd say is Kiwis are a pretty friendly bunch, don't pry too hard on us."
A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said: "Every country has the right to create its own immigration frameworks."
"It should be noted this is a proposal and has not been implemented," the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson referred New Zealand travellers to the SafeTravel website as that has current travel advice for all destinations.
Anyone with further queries should contact the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the spokesperson said.
22 Comments
More anti-Trump rhetoric.
How about an article on the UK who have arrested 12,000 citizens for social media posts so far this year under a left-wing government? The UK recently arrested an Irish citizen at gunpoint at the airbridge at Heathrow for anti-Trans posts on X. They used anti-terrorism legislation to arrest another UK citizen who posted anti-islamic views on Instagram (you have no rights to a lawyer and must hand over all devices).
I'll take my chances in the US thanks.
Yes indeed. Plenty of TDS in much emotional sentiment across the Anglosphere.
As an aside, noticed Trump saying he will be calling on the leaders of Thailand and Cambodia today to halt the war. Let's see if he does. Not much out of our social justice warriors as the Cambodians hide in storm water drains.
te Kooti,
There is no logic to your argument. What the UK may or may not be doing is simply irrelevant. If the proposal is implemented, i think the effect on US tourism will be very significant. What interests me more is the potential effect on business travel for NZ companies like F&P H'Care, whose executives like my daughter-in-law, go regularly.
I'm not making any argument though am I, I'm simply pointing out the lack of balance in reporting.
As for tourism to the US suffering, this policy has been in place for some time in reality. There are a number of documented cases where Australians have been refused entry following a length grilling at the border.
I'm not saying I support this, just that there is worse elsewhere that gets a free pass.
The world would be a better place if we kept our political views to ourselves. I certainly could not care less who you vote for or where you sit on the political spectrum so maybe keep it to yourself?
As for your DIL, if she has been political on social media they should get rid of her and replace her with someone more discrete. The US really doesn't need their business either.
It's worth nothing that the 12,000 arrests figure is from 2023. There were people arrested for malicious communications many years before that. Labour came into power in 2024, so arrests took place under the Conservatives as wel..
People have been arrested under the Malicious Communications Act (1988) introduced by Thatcher's govt, and the Communications Act (2003) which was Blair. The Tories have made no attempt at repealing those.
The laws above cover a broad spectrum of communications including threats, incitement to violence, terrorism-related content, and targeted harassment, not merely "offensive" speech, and you can see that they pre-date social media.
Graham Linehan was arrested for inciting violence online (telling people on social media to "punch him in the balls") and not apprehended at gunpoint, and Pete North was arrested under the Public Order Act for stirring up racial hatred, which was posted on Twitter-X. North was released.
More importantly, the number of people getting a custodial sentence for the broad spectrum of malicious communications as per above is in the hundreds, and not tens of thousands.
Linehan has argued in interviews and on his Substack that the “punch him in the balls” line was, in his view, a serious point expressed as a joke, and that it was not intended as a genuine call to violence.
Posting the full quote would give some context and journalistic balance.
“If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”
Juha highlights the insidious creep of the authoritarians march through the institutions and what a farce the right left distraction is. Statists would love nothing better than to control speech and are doing a damn fine job of achieving that goal.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/09/graham-linehans-freedom-o…
“Under the proposed new rules, the inclusion of five years' worth of social media data would also become a mandatory part of ESTA applications,”
I find it quite amusing that people will clutch their pearls over this, yet they're quite happy to live their lives with and hand over their data to Meta and Google. People claim to care about freedom and liberties, but the way they behave suggests they're just virtue signaling.
Depends what they are going to do with the data. Will Trump ban people that say bad things about him? Probably.
I would be more concerned about the hassle of it. Do you have to somehow download all that stuff and give it to them? Can they send you to Trump's new Alcatraz if you miss something? Doesn't sound like much of a holiday.
Depends what they are going to do with the data. Will Trump ban people that say bad things about him?
That's quite naive. The U.S. govt already has the capability to identify threats to their country, govt, and president without you giving them permission to look at your social media accounts.
US Constitution 1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment does not give non‑U.S. citizens a right to enter the United States, and it does not prevent immigration authorities from scrutinizing, denying, or conditioning entry. U.S. law treats the power to admit or exclude foreign nationals at the border as a sovereign prerogative, not as a First Amendment right of would‑be entrants.
So what's the new rule for, exactly?
I was thinking exactly the same. The ones who can exploit the data already have it.
No way to dna, I can live with retina scan but not dna
I didn't notice that bit. So to go on a holiday to the US I have to obtain all that stuff and upload it to them? My computer can't upload a saliva sample.
This would basically be the end of tourism wouldn't it? Who's going to do all that to go on holiday, may as well stay in your own country.
For example for me to reliably list all the phone numbers I've used in the last 5 years, I wouldn't even know where to start. I'd have to dig up some old phones I guess. If I miss some numbers and the US finds out, what happens?
How do I get biometric information (face, fingerprint, DNA and iris)? I need to go to somewhere and pay them to take all those things and send them on my behalf? Bugger that.
Maybe the US doesn't need the tourism. There must be a massive economic hit though. You couldn't even fly via the US anymore.
Hawaii just for a start and it’s not going as well as it used to in fact tourist wise.
what happens if you do not have social media?
Does Interest.co count?
Another blunder by Trump. Good bye to traveller's money and more generally money coming into the US from overseas. Trump has a warped idea of how important the USA is. He believes everyone in the world needs and want the USA. Oh how wrong he is!
If the Orange One bans LinkedIn then I'm giving him a sizeable campaign contribution for his third term (that he's still claiming is possible, even though there's a two term limit). Hate that site so much but still feel I have to do it for work/CV purposes
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.