Key Takeaways:
– A new bill could let the Secretary of State revoke passports without a trial.
– Critics warn this passport revocation power may punish peaceful speech.
– The bill targets “material support for terrorism,” but definitions could be broad.
– People stripped of passports can only appeal to the same official who revoked them.
Passport Revocation: A New Threat to Free Speech?
Free speech advocates are raising alarms about a bill in the US House. They fear it would let Secretary of State Marco Rubio strip citizens of their passports based solely on political speech. Rep. Brian Mast introduced the measure, and it faces a hearing this Wednesday. If passed, the bill would radically expand the state’s power to block international travel.
Background on the Bill
Rep. Brian Mast says his bill targets people tied to terrorism. One section lets the Secretary of State revoke or refuse passports for anyone convicted or charged with “material support for terrorism.” However, another part removes any legal process. It would let the secretary deny passports to people who “knowingly aided” a group the state labels a terrorist organization.
How Passport Revocation Works Under the Bill
Under this proposal, the Secretary of State gains new authority. First, he can strip a passport without a court order. Next, there is no clear standard for proving guilt. Finally, any appeal must go back to the same secretary. In short, the bill creates a system where one person acts as judge, jury, and executioner in passport revocation cases.
Examples Raise Concern
Critics point to past actions by Marco Rubio. He revoked visas and green cards for peaceful pro-Palestine protesters. For example, he voided the green card of Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil faced no criminal charges but was arrested by ICE after his card was revoked. Similarly, Rubio canceled the visa of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts student, after she co-wrote an op-ed calling for her school to divest from Israel.
Critics Warn of Thought Policing
Many worry the bill punishes opinions, not crimes. Journalist Zaid Jilani noted that courts can already remove passports for terrorism support, but only after a trial. He said the new bill would let Rubio act without due process. Likewise, Kia Hamadanchy from the ACLU argues that genuine terrorism support cases already go to court. Therefore, this bill serves little real security purpose.
Lack of Due Process and Appeal Issues
The measure includes an appeal process, but only to the same official who ordered the passport revocation. Once the secretary decides someone provided material support, that person must petition him for relief. In effect, people could lose their travel rights based on secret or vague evidence, with no independent review. Thus, the appeal process offers little real protection.
Comparison to Nonprofit Killer Provision
Observers note a strong parallel with a past proposal called the “nonprofit killer” provision. That plan would have let the Treasury Secretary strip nonprofit status from groups deemed terrorist supporters. Republicans tried to include it in a major spending bill in July, but it was removed after public outcry. Still, the language in Mast’s bill closely mirrors that failed provision, raising similar fears of unchecked power.
Why This Matters
Allowing broad passport revocation sets a dangerous precedent. Travel rights are a key part of citizenship and freedom. If the government can strip them without trial, any dissenting voice becomes vulnerable. Students, journalists, and activists could face travel bans based on their views. Moreover, this power could deter people from speaking out on sensitive issues.
Potential Chilling Effect on Free Speech
The threat of losing a passport may silence many. Individuals might avoid public protests or social media posts on topics like foreign policy. Even innocent people who associate with controversial groups could fall under suspicion. Consequently, free debate and academic research abroad could suffer. In the end, society loses when people fear open discussion.
What Happens Next
The bill goes to a hearing this Wednesday. Lawmakers will debate its text and hear testimony. Free speech groups, civil liberties advocates, and immigration experts will likely testify against the broad passport revocation power. Meanwhile, supporters will argue it protects national security. Regardless of the outcome, the hearing will shine a spotlight on how far the government can go to control travel.
How You Can Stay Informed
Check updates from your representatives and civic groups. Pay attention to testimony from legal experts and affected individuals. If you oppose the bill, consider contacting your members of Congress. Even if it passes the House, it must clear the Senate and reach the president’s desk. Public pressure could shape the final version or kill the proposal altogether.
Conclusion
This bill could reshape citizens’ travel rights forever. By granting the Secretary of State unchecked passport revocation power, it bypasses courts and silences dissent. As the hearing approaches, free speech advocates urge people to speak out. After all, in a democracy, protecting civil liberties requires constant vigilance.
FAQs
What exactly is passport revocation?
Passport revocation is when the government cancels or refuses to issue a passport. Under this bill, the Secretary of State could do so without a court order.
Who would be targeted by this bill?
The bill targets anyone accused of “material support for terrorism.” It could apply to people never charged or convicted, based on the secretary’s private determination.
Can you appeal a passport revocation decision?
Yes, but the only appeal is to the Secretary of State himself. Critics say this gives no real independent review.
Why are civil rights groups worried?
They fear the law would punish free speech and peaceful protest. People might avoid certain opinions to protect their right to travel.