U.S. Officials Deny Meme Was the Reason Norwegian Tourist Was Refused Entry at Border

Department of Homeland Security Clarifies Cannabis Admission, Not Political Content, Prompted Ban

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has clarified the circumstances surrounding the recent denial of entry for a Norwegian tourist, emphasizing that the decision was based on an admission of past drug use—not because of a meme involving Vice President J.D. Vance that was found on his phone.

The incident, involving traveler Mads Mikkelsen, gained global attention earlier this month after reports emerged suggesting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents barred him from entering the country due to the discovery of a political meme. DHS is now refuting that narrative, stating that the reason for denial stemmed from Mikkelsen’s admission of previous cannabis use, even though it occurred in jurisdictions where the substance is legal.

Tourist’s Detention Sparked Global Headlines After Meme Discovery and Denial of Entry

Mikkelsen, a Norwegian national, was stopped at a port of entry in New Jersey, where CBP officers inspected his phone and allegedly commented on a meme referencing Vice President Vance. Shortly thereafter, Mikkelsen was refused entry into the U.S., and media outlets quickly speculated that the rejection was politically motivated.

However, according to official statements released by DHS on Tuesday, the meme had nothing to do with the agency’s decision.

Cannabis Use in Legal Jurisdictions Led to Denial Under Federal Immigration Law

DHS stated unequivocally that Mikkelsen’s admission of drug use was the sole reason for his entry denial. The tourist told the Norwegian newspaper Nordlys that he had used cannabis in both Germany and Mexico, where such use was legal. Still, federal law governs border entry policies, and under U.S. immigration law, any admission of prior illegal drug use—regardless of the legality in another jurisdiction—can result in inadmissibility.

Mikkelsen emphasized that he believed the admission was irrelevant since cannabis use was lawful where it occurred. “It’s legal in both places,” he said. “Just like alcohol.”

Inconsistencies in Documentation Raise Additional Concerns for the Traveler

According to Mikkelsen, the written explanation he received from border officials contained multiple factual inaccuracies, including a claim that he held a Spanish passport—a country he says he has never visited. The document also alleged that he had a cannabis pipe on his person, although Mikkelsen asserts that CBP merely found a photograph of such an item on his phone.

Though marijuana remains federally illegal in the United States as a Schedule I substance, the circumstances surrounding the denial raise questions about how consistently federal agencies apply these rules—particularly when prior cannabis use occurred in places where such use was legal and socially accepted.

Federal Employment Standards Highlight Possible Discrepancy in Drug Use Policies

Ironically, CBP’s own employment eligibility standards allow individuals to apply for federal jobs if their last cannabis use was more than three years prior. DHS has not publicly clarified when Mikkelsen’s prior use occurred, nor whether this timeline was considered during the screening process.

Ongoing Legal Battles Over Border Seizures and Cannabis Enforcement Add Context

This incident marks the latest in a growing list of cannabis-related controversies involving DHS and CBP. Earlier this year, DHS petitioned a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by eight licensed New Mexico cannabis businesses. These companies accused federal agents of unlawfully seizing state-regulated marijuana and detaining workers at internal checkpoints.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, came amid widespread reporting that CBP agents were increasingly targeting legal operators despite state legalization measures.

New Mexico Governor and Congressional Leaders Criticize DHS Over Enforcement Actions

The DHS’s approach has drawn criticism from lawmakers and state officials. In April, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was recorded expressing frustration over DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ dismissive attitude toward her concerns. In the recording, Mayorkas allegedly said, “Who cares? They make a lot of money,” in reference to cannabis businesses.

Congressman Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) responded by attempting to add language to federal appropriations legislation that would prevent border patrol agents from using federal funds to seize marijuana products from licensed businesses.

Federal Cannabis Policy Remains Unchanged Despite Legalization at State Level

A CBP spokesperson reaffirmed the agency’s official position in a statement to Marijuana Moment, reiterating that federal law still treats cannabis as an illegal substance, regardless of state-level legalization.

“Although medical and recreational marijuana may be legal in some U.S. States and Canada,” the spokesperson said, “the sale, possession, production, and distribution of marijuana remain illegal under U.S. federal law… Individuals violating the Controlled Substances Act encountered while crossing the border may be deemed inadmissible.”

Case Highlights Ongoing Conflict Between Federal Policy and Global Cannabis Normalization

Mikkelsen’s case underscores the legal disconnect between growing global cannabis acceptance and the U.S. federal government’s continued prohibitionist stance particularly in border policy and immigration matters. As more travelers enter the U.S. from regions where cannabis is decriminalized or fully legal, similar incidents are likely to emerge unless the federal framework evolves.

For now, tourists—even those from countries with legalized cannabis must navigate the conflicting legal landscape carefully. Federal law remains clear: any prior drug use, regardless of local legality, can be grounds for denial of entry.

As the U.S. continues to grapple with how to reconcile state-level reforms with federal control, the debate over cannabis’s role in immigration, employment, and public policy is far from over.