Richard Grenell, a former U.S. ambassador to Germany and close ally of Donald Trump, recently called for revoking the U.S. visa of German journalist Elmar Thevessen. The demand came after Thevessen made strong statements against certain U.S. administration figures, which Grenell characterized as incitement or hateful speech. The threat has sparked debate around free speech, press freedom, and whether journalistic expression should ever trigger visa penalties.
How German media and journalist organizations responded to visa threat
German public broadcaster ZDF rejected Grenell’s demand vigorously. ZDF defended Thevessen, saying his work qualifies as protected speech under both German and American principles of press freedom. They stated that criticism even harsh or controversial is a core part of journalism.
The German Journalists Association also responded, calling Grenell’s threat out of step with democratic norms. It warned that using immigration and visa tools to punish journalists for their speech undermines important freedoms.
This incident comes against a backdrop of proposed U.S. policy changes that would limit visa durations for foreign journalists. The proposals would reduce visa validity to as little as 240 days for many, with tighter limits for journalists from certain countries like China. Critics argue such restrictions create uncertainty, discourage critical reporting, and could be used selectively to penalize reporters whose reporting displeases officials.
What legal protections exist for foreign correspondents
Foreign correspondents working in the U.S. generally hold journalist or traveler visas that allow them to stay for extended periods. Legal protections for free speech under the U.S. First Amendment protect a wide range of speech, especially criticism of government, even if that speech is provocative.
In Germany, free press is similarly protected under constitutional law, and journalists often rely on legal precedents to defend harsh criticism of public figures. Organizations that oppose Grenell’s suggestion argue that Thevessen’s actions fall squarely within those protections.
When visa revocations are used as political tools, tension rises between freedom of expression and government power. If officials can threaten journalist visas over speech they dislike, journalists may self-censor to avoid consequences. That danger worries many media watchers. It also raises diplomatic challenges:
Is this situation may unfold ?
In coming days, people will watch whether U.S. authorities act on Grenell’s demand or dismiss it. If visa revocation is pursued, legal challenges may appear. Journalistic bodies in both countries will likely issue statements. They may seek to defend Thevessen’s rights or draw broader attention to the risk to international reporting.
Also worth following are any changes to visa policy proposed by the U.S. government. If the restrictions on foreign journalists become law or regulation, the impact could be broader than just this one case. How media outlets cover the story even response internationally will also matter, as will public opinion about whether this threatens free press.
