Glancing at this DHS produced document it does not make a comparison to other countries. It simply hyper-inflates the risks the US poses (funny that a department that needs funding produces a document to press the needs for that funding). The document is as much about the risks of illegal drugs as it is from terrorism. Emboldened by Trump, and no doubt seeking to gain favour from Trump, this document claims there is a major threat over political elections - really? Name one election related terror incident in the US. The document puts a lot of emphasis on the influence and efforts of foreign powers to act against the US - this is correct but all countries are facing that risk. Lastly the document places an emphasis on lone actors conducting attacks (that would primarily be shootings) - but are these all terrorist and is that risk not created by the US lax gun laws?
So you have confirmed that the US is facing risks. You have not confirmed that these risks are all terrorist nor have you confirmed that the risks the US faces are worse than any other country. Soz.
No, they are not all terroristic, nor did I claim them to be. The purpose of my sharing the document is to provide a national perspective on threats to the US including terrorism. As an aside, I definitely see illegal drug importation as a form of terrorism.
Worse than other nations? I have no interest in confirming that the risks of the US are worse than any other nation, because regardless of your tolerance or the tolerance of others for terrorism is in your nation or any other, my tolerance for terrorism in the United States is…
ZERO.
Why would any civilized nation accept any other threshold?
If we are taking measures to drive the risk closer to zero, then good for us. You all might want to follow suit.
Yes, I hear there are all sorts of European travel agencies and guides that include that offer the “ICE Experience Excursion” for vacationers planning visits to the US. They come with free ice packs and backseat rides in police cars.
You now have no interest but earlier you were very keen to make such a claim (you wrote: but few, if any, nations are under greater threats for terrorist activities than the USA.)
I would suggest that you consider that an often repeated step on the road to making a country more military is to greatly exaggerate the threats to a nation. Hitler did this. Putin did this. Make the population feel under threat and offer the solution - which greater central control, powers to act and enforcement. This always leads to a reduction in individual rights and freedoms. And Trump is doing exactly that right now.
Of course there are threats to the US - but your takeaway that the US uniquely and more gravely under threat is completely wrong. And your assessment is exactly what the current administration wants you to think.
Oh, heard that as the next Trump executive order to be signed once he wakes up from his nap, did you? 
I get the impression that this report in the press is vastly overstated and probably written by a democrat.
Had I planned to visit America it would not make me even consider changing my plans.
You can only bang on for so long,
Alrighty, let’s go back to that then.
Let’s just look at the northern and southern borders without even considering the fun folks who have come in on student visas, work visas, or other means of entry.
Let’s look at Cato’s, Congress’s, and HS’s stats:
In under five years, there have been at the low end, 120K known documented terrorists or watchlist potential terrorists who have attempted to enter the nation illegally (by comparison there are 180K military members in the UK) - that’s the known ones, mind you - and another 500K that escaped without screening whatsoever. Now add the 14M undocumented people who have entered the nation that were only minimally screened and home-grown radicals, and no other nation compares.
Between '22 and '24, violent extremists have conducted three fatal attacks resulting in 21 deaths, and known and known watchlist terrorists have crossed or attempted to cross from nations such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Tajikistan (ISIS ties), Turkmenistan (ISIS-K), and several African, South American, and Central American countries that support (or don’t curb) radical, violent ideologies.
My takeaway is spot on, If anything, underestimated.
It would me, nosey bastewards
Well, shoot. I already had the flowers picked for the dinner table. 
I made up my mind a decade or two ago not to go to the US.
How would they be able to check the accuracy of the information you give them, given the widespread use of aliases and nicknames used online? Old style forum posts won’t be saved anywhere as many have folded years ago. Presumably it’s the main social media companies they would be interested in.
This is yet another reason never to store information on the cloud. It seems most businesses are now relying on it.
Again when it comes to family members, however would they check?
Biometric information - would they want everyone’s DNA? I guess this is where doing one of those online DNA tests is fulfilling all the prophesies of those who have been so reluctant to use those services.
One question for Surfermum. Have you ever been to the UK or other European countries ?
As far a Europe goes, I have not been to the UK, but I have been to six EU countries, as well as Turkey (European and Asian), and extensively to Russia, which required extensive background checks and apostilles for visa documentation (and oof, what a process that was). I’ve also walked through the visa process in other countries. Why do you ask?
Right?
The social side of a background check on a person’s technology is deeply flawed. It’s strange to me that both the UK and US plan to relay on questionnaires for accurate disclosure in their proposed new changes. However, anyone on the internet surely understands by now that whatever information they put out there is public and therefore fair game, so we have already tangentially yielded our social media activity to anyone who wants it.
I have preached to my children about restraint when they post publicly and believe that is sound advice for most anyone. Good software and ten minutes could reveal quite a lot on people who have a sizable online presence. From what we are reading over here, those in the UK have made the news for being subject to those types of searches.
On that note and I definitely do not want to offend here; but these speech and privacy questions have me wondering:
This whole subject of social media background information is somewhat confusing when it comes to the UK. We are reading over here that those in the UK are under a fair amount of scrutiny for what they are saying on social media, with arrests and prosecutions for some. Yet here we are with offense to having that social media reviewed when entering the U.S. I realize this is opening a can of worms, but why would a nation allow rigorous governmental scrutiny of social media at home and yet get upset about similar review when traveling to another nation? Am I misunderstanding this situation somehow? Or is this about disclosing information that is not readily available online? Or is there a division over whether the public feels that these publicized arrests resulting from social media investigations are legal? One thing I can tell you is that public opinion in the US that the UK government may be overstepping (what should be) free speech rights suggest that mandatory disclosure of social media history that is not readily available through public searches is not likely to fly with most Americans.
You all know that while the US is proposing changes, the UK and EU are already, or just about to implement more rigorous screening via the UK’s ETA and the EU’s more rigorous Q4 2026 ETIAs, which impose background checks on Americans and citizens of forty some odd other non-visa-required nations? Friendly nations have been trying to balance national security needs with the global public’s desire to travel with ease for some time and it’s shame to throw a small wrench into traveling, but I think these checks (save the social media disclosures) are probably wise. We are a little behind on the EU in imposing new requirements, and I expect the UK will soon include even more rigorous background checks.
I would imagine foxy that, like me, you don’t subscribe to the usual twitface or x or y or whatever it’s called, still, I’ve never been abroad so why would I start now…?
Good for you Primus1, there would be far fewer problems in the world if people didn’t go abroad.
Canada is a nice place.
Will have to Google it.
I don’t think anyone here is happy with the litigation of individuals for social media comments made in the heat of the moment. My feeling is that many ordinary people are starting to abandon social media these days. This is just at the time that our government is embracing tech and pushing us to be totally reliant on AI and online systems, quietly rolling out facial recognition, removing cash options, etc.
The US changes affect people who would have just hopped on a plane in the past and maybe filled in a piece of paper on the plane. You might expect it elsewhere but the US prides itself on being “the land of the free”.
Surfermum
I had no problems visiting Russia a couple of times, maybe because it is because you come from the USA.
The reason I asked is because president Trump has altered foreigners opinion of visiting the USA, You would notice this if you had been recently to the UK.
Being arrested at an Airport, put in prison or deported, for no reason is enough to put anyone off, let alone the gun crime that goes on in the USA.
Now add a 5 year investigation into ones internet connections and financial position ,and even worse relatives who have no intention of visiting the USA , shows signs of a President with mental problems. He has a fixation of keeping the USA safe from any outside influence, and his wild demands will put anyone wanting to go to the USA change their minds.
It is such a shame because on my visits to the USA in the past was well worth going and the people so friendly. Would I go now? NO. would I go to Canada given the chance ? Yes
It is going to be many years before the situation goes back to how it was, if ever.
So no overseas visitors or lot less will impact on so many businesses, not only in hospitality but far reaching services in ancillary support as well. Billions of dollars lost due to lack of overseas visitors.