Why is Vietnam blocking access to Telegram ?

Hanoi claims that the encrypted messaging app is enabling criminal activity, but there may be deeper considerations at play.

Vietnam’s government recently announced plans to block access to Telegram, a popular encrypted messaging platform. In an order dated May 21, the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) ordered domestic internet providers to block Telegram by June 2. With more than 11.8 million Vietnamese users as of 2024, Vietnam had one of Telegram’s largest national user bases globally, and the decision to restrict access to the app is likely to have significant impacts.

The official justification for the ban is the platform’s alleged complicity in illegal activities. MIC claims that around 70 percent of the nearly 10,000 active Telegram channels and groups in Vietnam were linked to fraud, narcotics trafficking, and suspected terrorism. The police also claim that opposition groups have used Telegram to distribute anti-government materials.

Vietnam’s rationale for banning Telegram aligns with a broader regulatory pattern: since 2018, the country has enacted increasingly strict controls over online content and foreign technology platforms. Key examples include the heavy-handed moderation requirements that it has imposed on Meta and Google, its periodic threats of TikTok bans, and a 2024 decree mandating identity verification for all social media users. The country’s 2018 Cybersecurity Law formalized many of these tendencies, obligating foreign platforms to store data locally and hand over information to the authorities upon request.

While an extension of this regulatory tendency, the Telegram ban also signals the Vietnamese authorities’ growing willingness to act pre-emptively and unilaterally. Unlike prior cases where the state negotiated behind closed doors with Big Tech or applied clandestine tactics, such as Facebook’s increased compliance following network slowdowns in 2020, Telegram’s more decentralized and opaque structure appears to have emboldened regulators to issue a blanket ban.

To be sure, similar actions have been taken in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Spain, which Vietnamese media reports have cited as justification for the move.

In the U.K., for example, Telegram has come under scrutiny for enabling “Terrorgram” – a network of far-right extremist channels spreading violent content. In April 2024, the U.K. government officially proscribed the Terrorgram collective as a terrorist organization, and the country’s Online Safety Act gives Ofcom, the U.K.’s communications regulator, the power to require platforms to remove illegal material. The United States designated Terrorgram and its leaders as global terrorists in early 2025, and Australia soon followed with counter-terrorism financing sanctions. Similarly, Spain briefly suspended Telegram in early 2024 following complaints that the app hosted pirated media content, though the suspension was quickly reversed by the courts.

Yet, Vietnam’s ban differs in important ways. Unlike the U.K. or Spain, where specific legal processes were used to target discrete elements of the platform, Hanoi has enacted a sweeping pre-emptive ban without due process, judicial oversight, or independent review. Furthermore, the Vietnamese government has been evasive about whether it communicated with Telegram before taking action. Telegram has claimed it responded to all legal requests in a timely manner and was “surprised” by the ban.

Despite the opacity and overreach of Vietnam’s approach to digital governance, it would be inaccurate to dismiss the state’s concerns as wholly unfounded. Telegram, like other encrypted platforms, has been used for legitimate communication as well as for disinformation campaigns, extremist recruitment, fraud operations, and other illicit activities. Online, opinion about the ban is divided. Many users, especially those who are most tech-savvy and privacy-conscious, have criticized the ban. Others back the government’s decision, arguing that the platform’s failure to moderate illegal content poses real threats to public order and national security.

However, banning Telegram outright is unlikely to stop determined actors from switching to other encrypted platforms. Instead, it risks cutting off ordinary users – including journalists, students, and civil society groups – from a secure communication tool on which they have come to rely.

Moreover, the Vietnamese government’s frequent invocation of “national security” as a catch-all justification for online censorship deserves critical scrutiny. Human rights advocates have usually cautioned that the term often serves as a rhetorical shield, obscuring political motives that may curtail civil liberties.

In the current context, banning Telegram may be partly aimed at stifling dissent ahead of key political milestones, including potential leadership transitions and party congress preparations. The timing of the move, which coincides with heightened scrutiny of anti-corruption investigations and centralization efforts under General Secretary To Lam, suggests that information control remains the core concern of the Vietnamese party-state.

By Vu Lam – The Diplomat – June 2, 2025