Rubio bill sparks fears of passport revocations over speech
3 Min Read
Advocates say a House bill could hand Secretary of State Marco Rubio unchecked power to revoke passports based on speech, bypassing due process.
-
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks in al-Quds, occupied Palestine, Monday, September 15, 2025. (AP)
Free speech advocates are warning that a new bill in the US House of Representatives could give Secretary of State Marco Rubio sweeping authority to revoke passports based solely on political expression.
The measure, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday. According to The Intercept, one section allows the secretary of state to “revoke or refuse to issue passports” to people convicted, or even just charged, with providing material support for terrorism.
Another provision bypasses the courts entirely, giving the secretary power to deny passports to anyone they decide “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 boasted of canceling visas and green cards for immigrants over their peaceful pro-Palestinian speech, calling them “Hamas supporters.” Those actions included Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after Rubio voided his green card, and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, whose visa Rubio revoked after she co-wrote an op-ed urging divestment from "Israel".
Mast, a former soldier for the Israeli occupation forces who once said babies were “not innocent Palestinian civilians,” has also urged “kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country,” referring to Trump-era attempts to deport Khalil, who was never charged or convicted of aiding "a terrorist group".
Stripping passports without due process
Critics say the legislation appears designed to let the secretary of state strip passports without due process. As Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, told The Intercept, there is little need for such a law because “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 noted on X that “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.”
The bill includes an appeal option, but as Hamadanchy observed, it is the secretary, “who has already made this determination,” who decides. “There’s no standard set. There’s nothing,” he said.
Seth Stern, advocacy director at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, compared the proposal to July’s failed “nonprofit killer” clause, which would have let the Treasury Secretary revoke nonprofit status from any group labeled “terrorist-supporting.” Stern warned Mast’s bill could enable “thought policing at the hands of one individual.”
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” Stern added, “even if what they say doesn’t include a word about a terrorist organization or terrorism.”
