Civil liberties advocates are sounding the alarm over a new House bill that could give Secretary of State Marco Rubio sweeping authority to revoke the passports of American citizens, raising concerns about due process and freedom of speech. The provision, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast of Florida as part of a State Department reorganization package, is scheduled for a hearing this week.
The bill arrives just months after Rubio stripped Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk of her visa over an opinion piece critical of Israel, an action later struck down by a court. Advocates warn that if the legislation becomes law, such executive discretion could extend to U.S. citizens, leaving them vulnerable to punishment for political views.
Mast has argued that his proposal is aimed at “terrorists and traffickers.” One section of the bill would authorize the secretary of state to revoke or refuse to issue passports to anyone “convicted—or merely charged—of material support for terrorism.” Civil liberties attorneys note that such cases are already prosecuted, with convicted individuals incarcerated and pretrial defendants often denied bail, making travel restrictions unnecessary.
The more controversial section bypasses the courts entirely, empowering the secretary to deny passports to anyone they determine “has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.” Critics say this vague language collapses speech into terrorism and removes judicial oversight.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, warned that the measure sidesteps evidence and accountability. “I can’t imagine that if somebody actually provided material support for terrorism there would be an instance where it wouldn’t be prosecuted — it just doesn’t make sense,” he said.
Supporters of the bill point to an appeals mechanism that allows citizens to challenge a passport revocation within 60 days. But the appeal is directed to the same secretary who made the initial decision, raising questions about fairness. Hamadanchy said the safeguard is illusory: “Basically, you can go back to the secretary, who has already made this determination, and try to appeal. There’s no standard set. There’s nothing,” he said.
Journalist Zaid Jilani underscored the difference between existing law and the proposed system: “judges can already remove a passport over material support for terrorism, but the difference is you get due process. This bill would essentially make Marco Rubio judge, jury, and executioner.”
The bill fits into a larger trend of expanding “material support” laws, first passed in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and later broadened after 9/11. The government has already applied such statutes in ways that critics call extreme. “The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that even offering advice about international law to designated terror groups could be classified as material support.” In another case, the government deemed a woman kidnapped and forced to cook and clean for Salvadoran guerrillas a material supporter of terrorism to justify her deportation.
Rubio himself has aggressively applied similar reasoning since taking office. He revoked the visa of Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, labeling him a “Hamas supporter,” and nullified Öztürk’s visa after she co-wrote a Tufts University op-ed calling for divestment from Israel. Neither case involved a conviction or charges for terrorism. Rubio has also added gangs and drug cartels to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations at an unprecedented pace.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation warns that Mast’s proposal could be particularly dangerous for journalists. Seth Stern, the group’s director of advocacy, said the measure amounts to “thought policing at the hands of one individual.” He added, “Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say, even if what they say doesn’t include a word about a terrorist organization or terrorism.”
Concerns about press freedom are not hypothetical. In November 2023, Sen. Tom Cotton demanded a “national security investigation” of The Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and Reuters over freelance photographers’ images of the October 7 attacks. Mast’s bill, Stern argued, follows the same pattern as other efforts to punish dissent, including last year’s so-called “nonprofit killer” bill that sought to let the Treasury secretary revoke tax-exempt status from groups labeled as “terrorist-supporting organizations.”
Although the legislation is being advanced by Republicans, advocates emphasize that the risks cut both ways. Stern pointed out that unchecked power could one day be wielded by a Democratic administration: “What is to stop a future Democratic administration from designating an anti-abortion activist, a supporter of West Bank settlements, an anti-vaxxer to be a supporter of terrorism and target them the same way? The list is endless.”
Despite these warnings, Mast has framed the proposal as a necessary tool for national security. He has previously called for “kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country,” including in reference to Khalil, who was detained but never convicted or charged with providing support to terrorism.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee is set to consider the provision during its hearing on the State Department reorganization package. Civil liberties groups, press freedom advocates, and immigrant rights organizations are mobilizing against the measure, arguing it is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and dangerous.
The outcome will determine whether passport authority remains subject to judicial oversight or becomes another arena where political speech can be conflated with terrorism and punished at the discretion of a single government official.
COMMENTS