A recent incident involving a Norwegian tourist denied entry into the United States has ignited debate over border security powers, electronic device searches, and the impact of online content on international travel. At the center of the controversy are starkly conflicting accounts regarding the reason for the tourist’s denial, raising crucial questions about traveler rights and the discretion of border officials.
The case involves Mads Mikkelsen, a 21-year-old Norwegian citizen (and not the famous actor), who arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport on June 11, 2025, intending to visit the U.S. Mikkelsen claims that upon arrival, border authorities singled him out for questioning.
The Tourist’s Account: Meme and Phone Search
According to Mikkelsen’s widely reported account, border officials subjected him to extensive questioning. He says the interrogation covered baseless accusations related to drug trafficking, terrorist plots, and right-wing extremism. A pivotal moment in his narrative came when officers allegedly demanded access to his mobile phone.
Mikkelsen claims he was threatened with severe penalties, including a significant fine or even imprisonment, if he refused to unlock his device. While experts later noted that non-citizens typically face denial of entry or device confiscation, not jail or fines, for refusing access, Mikkelsen states he felt compelled to comply. During the search of his phone, he claims authorities discovered specific images. One image was reportedly a photograph of him with a homemade wooden pipe, which officials allegedly classified as “narcotic paraphernalia.”
The more contentious discovery, according to Mikkelsen, was a specific type of meme. This was identified as a popular “Bald JD Vance” meme, a satirical image critical of U.S. Vice President JD Vance that gained traction online following a political debate and subsequent viral clips. Mikkelsen alleges that border agents took issue with this meme and the wooden pipe photo, using them as justification for his denial of entry. He reported being sent back to Norway the same day.
The Official U.S. Response: “Unequivocally FALSE”
In sharp contrast to Mikkelsen’s claims, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have issued forceful public statements. Officials vehemently denied that Mikkelsen was turned away because of a meme or for any political reasons.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin and statements from both agencies declared the claim that the meme was the reason for denial to be “unequivocally FALSE.” Instead, U.S. authorities maintained that the sole reason for denying Mads Mikkelsen entry was his admitted prior drug use. DHS stated that Mikkelsen admitted to having tried marijuana on previous occasions.
Mikkelsen reportedly confirmed that he had indeed admitted to trying marijuana. However, he disputed the relevance of this admission. He told Norwegian media that he had tried marijuana once in Germany and once in New Mexico. He believed these instances were not pertinent to his admissibility because cannabis use is legal in both Germany and, under state law, in New Mexico. U.S. authorities, however, operate under federal law, where marijuana remains illegal nationwide, regardless of state or foreign laws. DHS reiterated its position that “Only those who respect our laws and follow our rules will be welcomed into our country,” implying his admitted drug use constituted a violation of relevant U.S. laws concerning inadmissibility.
Conflicting Accounts and the Admissibility Documentation
Adding further complexity to the narrative, documentation provided by Mikkelsen himself presents yet another reason for his denial. A photograph of a page from the official DHS Form I-877, “Record of Sworn Statement in Administrative Proceedings,” dated June 11, 2025, cites Mikkelsen’s denial under a specific section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The cited section, INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), pertains to inadmissibility for immigrants who do not possess a valid visa. The document stated that Mikkelsen was denied because he did not appear to be a “bona fide visitor for pleasure” and could not overcome the presumption of being an “intending immigrant attempting to engage in unauthorized employment.” Crucially, the official documentation provided by Mikkelsen does not mention the meme, the wooden pipe photo, or admitted drug use as the stated reasons for denial. This creates a significant discrepancy between Mikkelsen’s public claim, the verbal official statements regarding drug use, and the formal reason documented by DHS.
Border Search Powers and Traveler Vulnerability
The incident highlights the extensive powers held by U.S. border officials at ports of entry. U.S. Customs and Border Protection asserts the right to search electronic devices, including phones and laptops, belonging to any traveler crossing the U.S. border, regardless of their citizenship status.
These searches are justified by CBP as integral to national security and enforcing U.S. laws. They are used to identify and combat various illicit activities, including terrorism, child pornography, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and visa fraud, and to determine a foreign national’s admissibility under U.S. immigration laws. While the legal right to search exists for all travelers, CBP data indicates these searches are rare, occurring in less than 0.01% of the nearly 1 million people who enter the U.S. daily, a rate consistent over recent years.
However, the rights and consequences differ significantly between U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. U.S. citizens cannot be denied entry into their own country based on content found on their devices, though they may face questioning, delays, or have devices confiscated. Non-citizens, including tourists and visa holders, have substantially fewer rights at the border and are particularly vulnerable. While non-citizens are not legally required to share their phone passwords, refusing to do so is grounds for denial of entry into the U.S. Experts note that non-citizens have “almost no leverage” in such situations, and refusal to cooperate typically results in being turned away, not jail time or fines as Mikkelsen reportedly claimed he was threatened with.
Can Phone Content Really Cause Denial? Expert Perspectives
Despite official denials regarding the meme in Mikkelsen’s specific case, the incident has spurred discussion on whether phone content, including political memes or other online expressions, can be a basis for denial of entry. Legal experts confirm that it is indeed possible, highlighting the discretionary nature of border decisions.
Petra Molnar, a lawyer and author specializing in technology and migration, stated that “it is absolutely possible that a meme, or an article, or a photograph can be used as the basis for the denial of entry.” She explains that decisions at the border are “highly discretionary.” This discretion has been amplified by pushes for “enhanced vetting” which can involve scrutinizing social media and digital content for perceived “risky behavior” or “hostility” towards the U.S. Molnar warns that for non-citizens, what might seem like a “silly joke can be used as the basis for detention, interrogation, and deportation” in the current climate.
Sophia Cope, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called denying a tourist entry over a meme “ridiculous” but conceded that non-citizens “have almost no leverage to not comply with the request to grant access to their device.” The increased scrutiny on digital content points to a broader trend of growing surveillance at the border. Traveler anxiety about U.S. border scrutiny, particularly regarding digital content, is considered warranted by privacy advocates. The focus on content might reflect sensitivity towards expressions of opposition, even seemingly benign ones.
The Mikkelsen case bears some resemblance to another reported incident in June 2025 involving Australian writer Alistair Kitchen. Kitchen claimed he was detained and denied entry based on his political views about the Gaza conflict expressed in his writings and during questioning. However, similar to the Mikkelsen case, DHS also publicly stated that Kitchen’s claim of being denied entry due to political beliefs was “unequivocally false.”
Practical Considerations for International Travelers
Given the potential for electronic device searches and the discretion of border officials, travelers entering the U.S., particularly non-citizens, may consider precautions. While these measures do not guarantee immunity from scrutiny or denial, experts offer suggestions to minimize potential risks:
Disable Biometric Unlock: Turn off Face ID, Touch ID, or other biometric access methods before arriving at the border. This makes it harder for officers to compel immediate access without requiring a password.
Use Secure Messaging: Utilize encrypted messaging apps like Signal where message content is not stored on the device or easily accessible.
Limit Cloud Access: Disable automatic cloud backups or synchronization that could download potentially sensitive content upon connecting to Wi-Fi.
Consider a “Burner” Phone: For travelers with heightened concerns, using a secondary device containing minimal or no personal data specifically for crossing the border is an option.
Remove Sensitive Material: Before traveling, review your phone and remove any photos, messages, or documents that could be misinterpreted or cause unnecessary scrutiny based on their content.
It’s important to reiterate that for non-citizens, refusing a lawful request to search a device or provide a password, while not a criminal offense punishable by jail or fine, is grounds for denial of entry under U.S. immigration law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the official reason given by U.S. authorities for denying the Norwegian tourist entry?
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) publicly stated that the Norwegian tourist, Mads Mikkelsen, was denied entry solely because of his admitted prior drug use, specifically mentioning marijuana. They explicitly denied that a meme found on his phone played any role, calling that claim “unequivocally FALSE.”
Can U.S. border officials legally search my phone or electronic devices?
Yes, U.S. border officials have the legal right to search electronic devices, including phones and laptops, belonging to any traveler crossing the border into the United States. This applies to both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. They cite these searches as necessary for national security and determining admissibility.
Could a meme or political content on my phone actually cause me to be denied entry to the U.S.?
While U.S. authorities denied this was the reason in the specific case of Mads Mikkelsen, legal experts state that in general, content found on a traveler’s phone, including memes or political expressions, could* potentially be used as a basis for denying entry to non-U.S. citizens. Border decisions are highly discretionary, and perceived “hostility” or “risky behavior” identified through digital content might impact admissibility.
Conclusion
The case of the Norwegian tourist denied entry to the U.S. presents a complex scenario with conflicting narratives. While the tourist claims a JD Vance meme and a photo of a pipe led to his denial, U.S. officials firmly state the reason was admitted drug use. Adding another layer, official documentation cites immigration intent issues. This discrepancy underscores the opacity surrounding individual denial decisions at the border.
Beyond this specific incident, the case serves as a stark reminder of the extensive powers U.S. border authorities hold to search electronic devices and the significant difference in rights between U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. While phone searches are rare, travelers should be aware that digital content can potentially influence border outcomes for non-citizens due to the discretionary nature of admissibility determinations. The debate continues over balancing national security with individual privacy rights in the digital age at the U.S. border.
Word Count Check: 1147
References
- www.usatoday.com
- www.dailymail.co.uk
- www.cincinnati.com
- <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jd-vance-phone-search-entry-denialn685dc308e4b0bb5044ffc07b”>www.huffpost.com
- www.snopes.com
