Free speech advocates are raising alarms over a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that could give Secretary of State Marco Rubio sweeping authority to revoke U.S. citizens’ passports based solely on political expression.
The legislation, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday. According to reporting from The Intercept:
Mast’s new bill claims to target a narrow set of people. One section grants the secretary of state the power to revoke or refuse to issue passports for people who have been convicted—or merely charged—of material support for terrorism…
The other section sidesteps the legal process entirely. Rather, the secretary of state would be able to deny passports to people whom they determine “has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”
Rubio has previously highlighted his role in canceling visas and green cards for immigrants whose only “offense” was expressing support for Palestine. He has publicly described such individuals as “Hamas supporters.”
Among those impacted were Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, arrested by ICE after Rubio voided his green card, and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, whose visa was revoked following her co-authored op-ed urging the school to divest from Israel.
Mast himself is no stranger to controversy. A former soldier for the Israel Defense Forces, he once declared that babies were “not innocent Palestinian civilians.” He has also called for “kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country,” while backing Trump administration attempts to deport Khalil — despite the fact Khalil had never been convicted or charged with any terrorism-related offense.
Civil liberties advocates argue the bill’s real purpose is to bypass due process, letting the Secretary of State single-handedly strip citizens of their passports without an actual criminal conviction.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, told The Intercept that the bill is unnecessary:
“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.”
Journalist Zaid Jilani made a similar point on X, writing:
“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.”
While the proposal includes an appeals option for those who lose their passports, the decision ultimately rests with the secretary — the same official who already made the initial determination. Hamadanchy noted the absence of any clear criteria:
“There’s no standard set. There’s nothing.”
Critics have also drawn comparisons to earlier Republican efforts. Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told The Intercept that Mast’s bill closely mirrors the “nonprofit killer” clause from July’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. That earlier measure would have let the Treasury Secretary revoke nonprofit status from any group he considered supportive of terrorism, though it was eventually removed.
Stern warned that Mast’s latest proposal is effectively:
“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.”
