Proposed Bill: Secretary of State Could Revoke Passports, Raising Free Speech Alarms

A new piece of legislation introduced by the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is causing significant concern among civil liberties advocates. Critics argue the bill could grant the Secretary of State, currently Marco Rubio, unprecedented power to revoke U.S. passports from American citizens based on their speech or opinions.

This development follows a prior instance in March where Secretary Rubio revoked the visa of Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk. A court later determined this action was based solely on her opinion piece critical of Israel, setting a precedent that deeply worries free speech proponents.

The proposed provision, sponsored by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) as part of a larger State Department reorganization, is scheduled for a hearing this Wednesday. While Mast’s office states the legislation targets “terrorists and traffickers,” civil liberties groups contend its broad language could enable the denial of travel rights to U.S. citizens based purely on their expressions.

Concerns Over “Thought Policing” Powers

Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, warns that the bill would open the door to “thought policing at the hands of one individual.” Stern elaborates, “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.”

Rep. Mast has previously expressed a desire to “kick terrorist sympathizers out of our country,” referencing past efforts to deport individuals like Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green-card holder, due to his pro-Palestine views. These past statements add to the apprehension surrounding the new bill.

Vague “Material Support” Definitions Under Scrutiny

The new bill outlines two primary sections for passport denial or revocation. One section applies to individuals convicted, or even merely charged, with providing material support for terrorism. Kia Hamadanchy, Senior Policy Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), suggests this particular clause would have minimal practical effect, given that terror convictions typically result in long prison sentences and pre-trial defendants are usually denied bail.

However, the second section raises more profound alarms, as it circumvents the traditional legal process. It would allow the Secretary of State to deny passports to individuals deemed to have “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”

Advocates are particularly disturbed by the reference to “material support.” Statutes criminalizing material support for terrorists, originally passed after the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing and strengthened post-9/11, have long been criticized for their potential misuse to suppress speech. The Supreme Court affirmed in 2010 that even offering advice on international law to designated groups could be classified as material support. In one extreme case, a woman kidnapped and forced to cook for Salvadoran guerrillas was deemed a material supporter to justify her deportation.

Broader Implications for Dissent and Journalism

Since the October 7 Hamas attacks, there has been an increased effort by some lawmakers and activists to broaden the scope of anti-terror laws. Groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law have suggested that even on-campus activism by Students for Justice in Palestine could constitute “material support” for Hamas.

This new bill echoes language from previous legislative attempts, such as a “nonprofit killer” bill that would have allowed the Treasury secretary to strip charitable status from groups deemed “terrorist-supporting.” Stern notes, “This is an angle that lawmakers on the right seem intent on pursuing — whether through last year’s nonprofit killer bill, or a bill like this.”

The provision poses a particular threat to journalists, according to Stern. He cited Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) 2023 demand for a Justice Department “national security investigation” into major news outlets over freelance photographers’ images of the October 7 attacks as an example of the chilling effect such powers could have on press freedom.

Rubio’s prior actions, such as revoking Öztürk’s visa over an op-ed in a student newspaper calling for university divestment from Israeli-tied companies (which did not mention Hamas), underscore these concerns. Since taking office, Rubio has also rapidly expanded the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, often including gangs and drug cartels previously handled by the criminal legal system.

“Safety Valve” or Empty Promise?

Mast’s bill includes an ostensible safety valve: citizens would have 60 days to appeal to the Secretary of State if their passports are denied or revoked. However, the ACLU’s Hamadanchy finds little comfort in this provision.

“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,” Hamadanchy stated. He believes that granting the Secretary of State such broad discretionary power over passports is an attempt to bypass the need for concrete evidence of legal violations, arguing that genuine material support for terrorism would already lead to prosecution.

While similar bills have seen limited bipartisan opposition, Stern argues that Republicans should be equally concerned about the infringement on civil liberties presented by this passport bill. He warns that such unchecked power could easily be wielded by a future Democratic administration, potentially targeting anti-abortion activists, supporters of West Bank settlements, or anti-vaxxers as supporters of terrorism, highlighting the endless possibilities for misuse.