> Trump himself hinted at as much during his speech. “The Senate just passed the Take It Down Act,” he said. “Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”
As best I can tell, the State Department exercises the same of rules (enshrined in law) during both renewal and revocation.
The adjacent thread points out that visa eligibility already contains explicit proscriptions around expression: advocating for a designated terrorist group makes one ineligible for a visa, per federal law. I'm not aware of any challenge to that rule that's been mounted on 1A grounds.
(I don't think anything Trump says about the Take It Down Act is relevant here. That's an entirely separate miscarriage of justice that does have 1A relevance.)
I don't think this is relevant (or even correct, but that doesn't matter). 1A is simply not a right (or "control on the behavior of the government") that applies here: visas are issued at the discretion of the State Department.
Or more simply: I don't think a visa holder could successfully argue that the State Department is obligated to renew their visa solely on 1A grounds. If this isn't the case, then an argument against revoking would fail similarly.