Civil Liberties Groups Warn: Passport Bill Is 'Policing'
United States Next Generation Passport signature and biodata page. Photo courtesy of Keesing Platform. Public domain.
A new bill introduced by Rep. Brian Mast could reportedly give Secretary of State Marco Rubio broad authority to revoke U.S. citizens' passports based on allegations of support for terrorism — even in cases where individuals are merely charged, without a criminal conviction. The legislation, part of a broader State Department reorganization, has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, who warn it risks turning the right to travel into a tool of political suppression.
A Bill Targeting 'Terrorists and Traffickers' With Broad Reach
Mast's bill says it targets "terrorists and traffickers" and would give the Secretary of State the authority to deny or revoke passports for individuals convicted or even just charged with providing material support for terrorism, as reported by The Intercept. More controversially, it allows the Secretary to act against anyone deemed to have "knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support" to organizations designated as foreign terrorist groups, even without a criminal conviction. While the bill includes an administrative appeals process — citizens can request review by the Secretary of State — critics argue that this offers only limited oversight, since there is no independent judicial review, and raises serious constitutional due process concerns,
This broad language has raised concerns because "material support" laws have often been used in ways that blur the line between speech and criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for offering advice or advocacy to designated groups, even when the speech did not explicitly promote terrorism. Civil liberties groups worry the bill could be interpreted to punish political expression, especially given the Secretary of State's discretion, though whether such revocations would survive legal challenge remains uncertain
Rubio's Controversial Record Fuels Concerns
Marco Rubio's record intensifies worries about the bill's potential misuse. Since taking office, Rubio has expanded the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations, focusing heavily on gangs and drug cartels — areas traditionally handled by the criminal justice system. Free speech advocates also point to his past decisions to revoke visas and green cards from immigrants based on their political views
For example, Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk lost her visa after writing an opinion piece critical of Israel, a decision later overturned by a court. Similarly, Palestinian green-card holder Mahmoud Khalil faced deportation proceedings after being labeled a Hamas sympathizer despite no criminal charges. Critics say these cases illustrate how political speech — particularly criticism of Israel or support for Palestine — has been targeted under the guise of national security
Civil Liberties Advocates Warn of 'Thought Policing'
Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, described the bill as opening the door to "thought policing at the hands of one individual," as reported by The Intercept. He pointed out that Rubio has claimed the power to designate people as terrorist supporters based solely on their speech or opinions, even when those statements do not mention terrorism or terrorist organizations
According to Truthout, Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed these concerns, noting that the bill's appeal process is limited to the Secretary of State who made the initial decision. Critics say this leaves vague standards and few safeguards in place
Hamadanchy also questioned the bill's practical value, arguing that individuals convicted of material support for terrorism are typically already serving long prison sentences and unable to travel. The bill's real impact, he suggested, could fall on people facing allegations or whose political speech is interpreted as support
The Bill's Supporters Frame It as a National Security Measure
Rep. Brian Mast, a U.S. Army veteran who later volunteered with an Israeli military support program, has publicly supported tough measures against what he calls "terrorist sympathizers," as reported by Truthout. He has reportedly praised efforts to deport individuals like Mahmoud Khalil, framing such actions as necessary to protect the country
Mast's bill is part of a broader push by some lawmakers to expand the government's tools against terrorism, especially in the wake of recent attacks and heightened concerns about foreign influence. Supporters argue that denying passports to suspected terrorists or their supporters is a reasonable step to prevent travel that could facilitate violence or illegal activities
Risks of Unchecked Executive Power and Chilling Effects
Despite these national security arguments, critics warn that the bill grants broad power to a single official, undermining constitutional protections. "This bill would essentially make Marco Rubio judge, jury, and executioner," wrote Journalist Zaid Jilani on X (formerly Twitter), as reported by Truthout.
Stern cautioned that while Republicans currently control the government, future administrations could use the same authority to target political opponents, activists, or dissenters across the ideological spectrum. The bill's vague language and lack of judicial oversight, critics argue, risk creating a chilling effect on free speech. Citizens may self-censor or avoid controversial political expression out of fear that their passports could be revoked without trial — a prospect whose legality remains uncertain. Concerns are heightened by Rubio's history of targeting political speech related to Palestine and Israel
A Pattern of Expanding Anti-Terror Measures
Mast's bill echoes other recent legislative efforts that have alarmed civil liberties groups. For instance, a "nonprofit killer" provision in a previous bill would have allowed the Treasury Secretary to strip tax-exempt status from organizations deemed to support terrorism, a move that was ultimately defeated after widespread opposition, as reported by The Intercept.
The similarity in language and approach suggests a coordinated effort among some lawmakers to broaden the scope of anti-terror laws in ways that critics say could infringe on constitutional rights
What's Next?
The bill is scheduled for a hearing soon, and its fate remains uncertain. Civil liberties groups are mobilizing to oppose it, emphasizing the need for clear legal standards, judicial oversight, and protections for free speech.
For now, the debate highlights a fundamental tension in American democracy: how to balance national security with the protection of civil liberties. As you consider the implications, it's worth asking how much power should be concentrated in the hands of one official, and what safeguards are necessary to prevent abuse.
If the bill passes, it could mark a significant shift in how the government controls the movement and rights of its citizens, raising urgent questions about the future of free expression in the United States.
References: New Bill Would Give Marco Rubio Power to Revoke U.S. Passports | New Bill Could Cause US Citizens to Lose Passport Over Political Views | New Bill Would Allow Rubio to Strip US Citizens' Passports Over Political Speech
