WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourist visas of up to 200,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States as short-term visitors and later applied for asylum, a move that could become the largest single mass visa revocation in U.S. history.
The State Department is expected to announce the action in the coming weeks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials familiar with the plan. The effort would target B-1 and B-2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 to people who have sought or are currently seeking asylum in the United States.
B-1 visas are generally used for temporary business travel, while B-2 visas are issued for tourism, family visits, medical treatment, and other temporary purposes. Both are nonimmigrant visas, meaning holders are expected to leave the United States after a limited stay rather than seek permanent residence.
The State Department has not confirmed the 200,000 estimate. Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the department was working with the Department of Homeland Security to identify and revoke nonimmigrant visas held by people who entered as short-term visitors but later filed asylum claims to remain in the country permanently.
Pigott said the number of revocations remained “dynamic” and would be carried out on a rolling basis.
If implemented at the scale described in the reports, the action would represent an unprecedented use of the federal government’s visa-revocation authority. It would also likely face legal challenges from immigrant-rights groups and attorneys representing asylum seekers, particularly because applying for asylum is a right available under U.S. law regardless of how a person entered the country.
What the administration plans to do
The State Department’s planned action would focus on people who were issued B-1 or B-2 visas from 2016 through 2026 and who subsequently applied for asylum or currently have asylum applications pending.
The administration’s argument is that these visa holders represented themselves as temporary visitors but later sought permanent protection in the United States.
“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,” Pigott said.
The policy would not necessarily accuse each affected person of fraud. People can enter the United States legally on a visitor visa and later seek asylum if conditions change in their home country or if they develop a credible fear of persecution after arriving.
But the administration appears to be treating the transition from temporary visitor status to asylum seeker as sufficient grounds to revoke the original visa.
The planned revocations would be coordinated by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which includes U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and other immigration agencies.
The government has not released a public list of countries whose nationals would be affected. Because B-1 and B-2 visas are issued worldwide, the action could involve people from a wide range of regions, including Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
The State Department has also not said exactly how it would identify every affected visa holder or distinguish between people with pending cases, denied cases, withdrawn applications and final grants of asylum.
Visa revocation is not automatic deportation
The planned revocation of a B-1 or B-2 visa would not automatically result in immediate deportation, according to U.S. officials cited by The Associated Press.
Most people with pending asylum cases would be reclassified and would lose their formal status as business or tourism visitors, officials said.
That distinction is important.
A visa allows a foreign national to request entry to the United States. It is not the same as immigration status, which governs a person’s authorized stay after admission. A person who enters on a visitor visa may later file an asylum application, and the asylum process can create a separate legal framework while the case is pending.
An asylum applicant who has a properly filed, pending case may be allowed to remain in the United States while immigration authorities or courts decide the claim. In many cases, asylum applicants can apply for employment authorization after a waiting period.
Revoking the original visitor visa would not necessarily cancel a pending asylum claim. Nor would it automatically remove legal protections available to the applicant under immigration law.
However, it could create new uncertainty. People who travel abroad after their visa is revoked may not be able to return. It could also affect people whose asylum cases are denied, withdrawn or delayed, because they may no longer have any valid visitor status to rely on.
Immigration lawyers are likely to examine how the policy applies to people with different procedural histories. The effect could vary significantly depending on whether a person is in affirmative asylum proceedings with USCIS, defensive proceedings in immigration court, under an order of supervision or facing removal proceedings.
Asylum law and visitor visas
U.S. law allows people physically present in the country to apply for asylum regardless of their immigration status or manner of arrival.
An individual may apply for asylum if they fear persecution in their home country because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
The asylum system has strict requirements. Applicants generally must apply within one year of arrival unless they qualify for an exception. They must show a well-founded fear of persecution, and their cases can take years to resolve because of large backlogs at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and immigration courts.
People who enter on visitor visas may seek asylum for legitimate reasons. A political crisis, war, personal threat, religious persecution or other danger may arise after they arrive. In other cases, a person may have intended to seek protection before arrival but used a visitor visa because it was the only available legal route to reach the United States.
The Trump administration’s position appears to be that visitor visas should be reserved for those who intend to return home and that people who later seek asylum have used a temporary visa in a way inconsistent with its purpose.
Immigrant advocates are likely to argue that the policy could discourage people with valid asylum claims from applying for protection. They may also say it could create a chilling effect by suggesting that asylum applicants will face punitive consequences for exercising a legal right.
The central legal question may be whether the State Department can revoke visas on this basis as a matter of administrative discretion, and whether it has followed proper procedures in doing so.
The largest mass revocation yet
If the planned action reaches 200,000 people, it would be the largest single mass visa revocation in U.S. history, according to officials and reports citing State Department documents.
Visa revocation is not unusual in individual cases. The State Department can cancel visas for a range of reasons, including criminal activity, security concerns, visa fraud, changes in eligibility or violations of immigration law.
But revoking visas at a scale potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of people would be different.
The government has previously used broad visa restrictions to limit entry from particular countries, suspend categories of travel, or respond to public-health or national-security concerns. The planned action appears unusual because it would focus on a person’s later asylum application rather than nationality, a specific event or a uniform security finding.
The State Department’s ability to revoke visas is broad, but a mass policy can create administrative and legal complications. Officials must identify affected people accurately, notify them appropriately, and ensure that revocations do not improperly interfere with pending asylum proceedings.
The number also matters politically. Immigration policy has been a central issue in the Trump administration’s agenda, and a move involving up to 200,000 people would signal a significant expansion of its efforts to limit pathways for migrants to remain in the United States.
A broader immigration crackdown
The planned visa action is part of a wider Trump administration campaign to reduce both unauthorized and legal immigration.
In recent months, the administration has moved to increase enforcement, narrow visa eligibility, restrict asylum processes, and make employment-based immigration more expensive.
The Department of Homeland Security recently proposed a $103,265 fee for most new, cap-subject H-1B petitions for skilled foreign workers. That proposal is separate from the asylum-related visa revocation plan, but both policies reflect an effort to reduce the number of people able to remain in the United States through existing immigration channels.
The administration has also pursued expanded immigration detention, faster removal procedures, and increased pressure on local governments to cooperate with federal enforcement.
Supporters of the administration’s approach say the United States needs stronger controls to prevent misuse of visitor visas and reduce incentives for people to enter temporarily with the intention of seeking permanent status.
Critics say the policies blur the line between fraud and lawful use of the asylum system. They argue that people fleeing persecution should not be penalized because they initially arrived using a visa category that was available to them.
The dispute reflects a deeper disagreement over the purpose of immigration law. One side emphasizes enforcement, deterrence, and the integrity of temporary visas. The other emphasizes protection, due process, and the right to seek asylum.
Legal challenges likely
The planned revocations are likely to prompt lawsuits.
Immigrant-rights organizations may argue that the policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act or constitutional due-process protections. They could seek court orders blocking the government from carrying out the revocations while litigation proceeds.
One possible argument would be that the administration cannot treat a pending asylum application as evidence that a person’s original visitor visa was invalid or improperly obtained.
Another issue will be notice. Affected individuals may need a clear explanation of why their visas were revoked and what effect the decision has on their asylum cases, work authorization, travel and possible removal proceedings.
The government may respond that visa revocation is a discretionary consular function and that a visa does not guarantee continued admission or a right to remain in the country.
Courts have often given the executive branch substantial deference in immigration and visa matters. But a broad policy involving up to 200,000 people could invite more scrutiny than an individual revocation.
The administration could also face practical obstacles. Immigration agencies already manage extensive backlogs. Identifying visa holders across a 10-year period, matching them to asylum records and processing notices on a rolling basis would require coordination across multiple databases and agencies.
What affected people should understand
People who have filed or are considering filing asylum claims should not assume that the policy automatically ends their cases.
A revoked B-1 or B-2 visa does not itself decide whether an asylum claim will be granted or denied. Asylum cases are evaluated under separate legal standards, and applicants may retain the right to present evidence to USCIS or an immigration judge.
But individuals affected by a visa revocation may face serious consequences if they travel outside the United States, miss court deadlines or fail to understand their current immigration classification.
Anyone with a pending case should seek advice from a qualified immigration attorney or accredited legal representative. They should keep copies of all government notices, maintain current contact information with USCIS and the immigration court, and avoid relying on rumors or unofficial social media guidance.
Individuals should also remember that immigration law is highly fact-specific. The consequences of a visa revocation can differ depending on the status of a case, family relationships, prior immigration history, work authorization and whether removal proceedings have begun.
What happens next
The State Department is expected to announce the revocations in the coming weeks, unless the plan is revised or challenged before implementation.
Officials say the process will be ongoing rather than completed in a single announcement. That means the actual number of revoked visas could be lower or higher than early estimates, depending on how the government defines the affected group and how many people are identified.
For now, the administration has announced its intent but not a final operational framework.
The policy could affect a large number of people who entered the United States lawfully on visitor visas and later sought protection through the asylum system. It would not automatically deport them, but it could remove an important layer of legal status and increase uncertainty for families already navigating long and complex asylum proceedings.
The action will likely become another major test of how far the Trump administration can go in using visa authority to advance its immigration agenda, and whether federal courts will allow it to treat a request for asylum as grounds for revoking a previously issued visitor visa.