You might be planning a trip to the US in 2026 for a holiday, a work conference, or to cheer on the Socceroos at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
For decades, Australians have enjoyed visa-free travel under the ESTA program for stays of up to 90 days. But that convenience could soon come at a heavy cost impacting your 2026 and beyond plans for travel to the USA.
Under a new proposal announced this week, every ESTA applicant would be required to hand over five years of social media handles, phone numbers, email addresses, and even personal details about close family members. All of it mandatory. All before you even board the plane. The US government says this is about security, but for many, especially women, it feels like an invasion of privacy and a threat to free expression.
The U.S. government says this is about security and keeping out people with “hostile attitudes.” But let’s pause and ask, since when does criticism equal danger? Since when does disagreeing with a government policy make you a threat? If democracy means anything, it means the right to speak freely, even to criticise those in power, without fear of punishment.
Under the proposal, applicants would need to provide every social media handle they have used in the past five years, along with personal contact details and family information. Officials argue this will help identify extremists, but in reality, it creates a system where your digital footprint becomes a loyalty test.
For women, this is particularly alarming. Many of us keep accounts private for safety—because we’ve faced harassment, stalking, or abuse. Women journalists, activists, and family violence survivors often lock down their profiles to protect themselves. Now, imagine being told that your lack of public posts could count against you. That your silence or your caution might look suspicious. It’s not just invasive, it’s chilling.
And what about those who do speak out? If you’ve ever tweeted support for Kamala Harris, criticised Donald Trump, or posted about reproductive rights, will that be held against you? The idea that political opinions could influence whether you are allowed to enter a country is terrifying. It’s the kind of thing we associate with authoritarian regimes not the self-proclaimed “greatest democracy in the world.”
This is not just about privacy it is also about principle. Free speech is not free if it costs you entry at the border. It is about the right to hold different views without being branded a risk. It is about artists, athletes, and writers, people whose work thrives on challenging norms, being able to travel without fear that a lyric, a painting, or a tweet will derail their careers. Imagine a feminist author like Clementine Ford being denied entry because she wrote a book criticising patriarchal systems. Or a musician who penned a protest song about women’s rights being flagged as “hostile.” These aren’t hypotheticals, they are the logical outcome of a system that conflates dissent with danger.
Women, in particular, stand to lose the most. We have fought for spaces where our voices matter, online and offline. Now, those spaces are being weaponised against us. The message is clear: conform, stay silent, or risk being shut out. That is not security. That is control. And for women who rely on anonymity for safety, whether they’re escaping abuse, protecting their children, or shielding themselves from harassment, this proposal forces an impossible choice: give up privacy or give up opportunity.
Yes, countries have the right to vet visitors. But vetting should target real threats, not opinions. It should protect borders, not punish dissent. If America wants to lead as a democracy, it must prove that freedom of thought and expression aren’t just slogans, they are lived values. Because when a government starts policing what you say or don’t say online, it’s not just about travel. It’s about something far bigger: the erosion of a core democratic belief that difference is not danger, and that democracy thrives on debate, not fear.
And here’s the irony: with all my writing and opinion pieces questioning governments and policies, pushing for change to make life better for women and for women with intersecting identities, I may have locked myself out of America. My attempt to speak truth to power could now be the very thing that bars me from crossing its borders.