House bill would let Marco Rubio strip passports over political speech

Provision would let the Secretary of State deny or revoke passports over alleged “material support” as critics warn of thought policing and unchecked authority.

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.