Reversal on Passport Bill Offers Hope for Civil Liberties Advocates

Washington, D.C. — A controversial proposal that would have allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to revoke American citizens’ passports on the grounds of providing alleged “material support” to terrorists is facing significant backlash, prompting a Republican lawmaker to withdraw that measure.

The proposal was introduced by Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., during a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting as part of a larger State Department reorganization bill. It aimed to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to deny or revoke passports for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism-related offenses.

Critics argued that the language in the bill could be dangerously broad, potentially allowing for the infringement of civil liberties and freedom of speech. The uproar intensified after reports that Rubio had previously revoked the visa of Turkish student Rümeysa Öztürk, based solely on her criticism of Israel, a decision contested in court.

“This would allow thought policing at the hands of one individual,” said Seth Stern, advocacy director at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “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.”

In light of the backlash, Mast announced a manager’s amendment intended to strip the passport-revocation provision from the bill, a move that civil liberties groups applauded. Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, welcomed the reversal, emphasizing it was a crucial step to curtail potential abuses of power.

“It was hugely problematic, created a huge risk of abuse, of politicized enforcement,” Hamadanchy stated, highlighting the risks posed by allowing the Secretary of State discretionary authority without oversight.

While Mast contends that the bill primarily targets terrorism and trafficking, the ambiguity regarding “material support” has raised concerns that it could disproportionately affect vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel. The bill’s future in the Senate remains uncertain.