According to the text published in the Federal Register, the measure would require ESTA applicants to submit a list of their social media identifiers—usernames or account handles—used during the last five years, along with email addresses from the last decade and recent telephone numbers. Although travelers would not be required to provide passwords or grant full access to their accounts, this expanded obligation would allow U.S. authorities to review publicly available activity on digital platforms as part of their risk assessment.
The Trump administration has framed the initiative as a key element of its policy to strengthen border security and increase scrutiny of foreigners entering the country, arguing that this additional review would help identify potential threats to national security or signals of behavior that could run counter to U.S. interests. However, tourism experts and international industry organizations have raised serious concerns about the economic and reputational consequences of the measure, warning that it could deter millions of potential tourists, reduce travel spending and affect jobs tied directly and indirectly to tourism.
A recent study commissioned by the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) indicates that more than a third of surveyed international travelers said they would be less inclined to book a trip to the United States if the rule moves forward as currently proposed. This perception of greater intrusion and added complexity in the entry process could translate into a meaningful decline in global arrivals, with some estimates placing the drop in visitors at around 20% or even higher. Such a decrease would imply losses of billions of dollars in tourism-related spending and could put thousands of jobs at risk across the sector.
WTTC representatives have emphasized that while border security is a legitimate priority, the way social-media-based checks are implemented could produce a much stronger deterrent effect than policymakers anticipate, undermining U.S. competitiveness against global destinations that vie for the same traveler markets. In addition, the international perception of more extensive monitoring of personal digital activity as a condition of entry has been compared in some analyses to more restrictive immigration approaches observed in other geopolitical contexts, potentially affecting the image of openness and hospitality traditionally associated with U.S. tourism.
The expanded data requirement also raises questions about privacy and the protection of personal information, because it effectively forces travelers worldwide to decide whether they are willing to share elements of their digital identity in order to enter the country. Digital rights organizations and privacy specialists have voiced concerns about the boundaries of this practice, particularly when it involves collecting information that may be sensitive or perceived as intrusive by social media users.
It is also important to note that the initiative appears within a broader landscape of U.S. immigration and border-control policies that have evolved in recent years, including social media reviews for certain categories of visa applicants, such as students and workers, and other proposals involving digital profiles as part of background screening. While some elements of these measures are presented as responses to security concerns, their impact on global mobility, traveler confidence and the tourism economy remains a topic of debate both inside and outside the United States.
As a result, the international tourism sector is closely watching the proposal’s evolution, any adjustments made after the public comment period, and the final decisions adopted by the U.S. government. The outcome will influence not only short-term international visitor numbers, but also the broader global perception of the United States as an accessible destination for millions of travelers.
