The debate over a new passport law began after Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked the visa of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student, in 2024. Her only offense, a court later determined, was publishing an opinion piece critical of Israel in her university newspaper. No connection to terrorism was ever established.
This case now looms large as Congress prepares to review a bill that could extend similar powers to American citizens, raising concerns about free speech and government overreach.
Mast’s Bill Moves Forward
The proposal comes from Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Set for its first hearing this week, the bill is presented as part of a State Department overhaul and framed as a measure against “terrorists and traffickers.”
However, critics argue that the language is vague and broad enough to allow the secretary of state to revoke or deny passports based solely on political views, not criminal actions.
Civil Liberties Advocates Push Back
Civil rights groups have raised red flags, warning that the bill could effectively punish people for what they say or believe. The concern is that it hands extraordinary power to a single official without sufficient oversight or due process.
The legislation has two central provisions. The first allows passport denial for those convicted—or even charged—with providing material support for terrorism. The second provision goes further, granting the secretary of state the authority to revoke passports of anyone they decide has offered such support, even without a conviction.
The Troubled History of “Material Support”
The term “material support” has long been controversial. It first appeared in U.S. law after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and was expanded after 9/11. Courts and immigration officials have since interpreted it broadly, sometimes in ways critics see as unfair or excessive.
In 2010, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that even providing legal guidance to a group designated as a terrorist organization could count as material support. In another case, a woman kidnapped by Salvadoran guerrillas and forced into labor was deemed a “supporter of terrorism” during her deportation proceedings.
These precedents make opponents fear that Mast’s bill could criminalize speech or advocacy under the same label.
Rising Pressure After October 7
The push for stronger anti-terror measures has intensified since Hamas’s October 7 attacks in Israel. Pro-Israel organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, have accused groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine of indirectly providing material support for Hamas through campus activism.
Congress also recently considered the so-called “nonprofit killer” bill, which would have allowed the Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of organizations deemed sympathetic to terrorism. Although that proposal was defeated after strong pushback from nonprofit coalitions, Mast’s bill echoes many of its themes.
Rubio’s Expanding Authority
Rubio’s record as secretary of state is another point of contention. Since taking office, he has expanded the list of designated terrorist groups at a rapid pace, focusing not only on international networks but also on gangs and cartels.
His handling of Öztürk’s case illustrates how these powers can be applied in ways that affect individuals based on political speech. Her op-ed did not mention Hamas or terrorism, yet it was used to justify canceling her visa. Opponents fear similar actions could soon target U.S. citizens.
Appeals With Little Relief
The bill includes a clause allowing citizens to appeal within 60 days if their passport is denied or revoked. But the appeal would go to the secretary of state—the same person who made the initial decision.
Critics argue this does not amount to meaningful oversight. Without clear legal standards or independent review, they warn the process could become a rubber stamp for prior decisions.
Threats to Press and Political Advocacy
The legislation’s potential impact on journalists and activists has drawn particular attention. Past calls from lawmakers to investigate media organizations for their reporting on conflicts highlight how political pressure could shape decisions under such a law.
Civil liberties groups warn that advocacy on polarizing issues—whether related to Israel-Palestine, abortion, or public health—could be labeled as support for terrorism, leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable to punishment for their beliefs.
Some lawmakers on the libertarian right opposed previous efforts, like the “nonprofit killer” bill, but opposition has otherwise been limited. Analysts caution that many Republicans seem confident their party will remain in power and use these tools against political opponents.
But critics warn that the law would apply equally under future administrations. A Democratic secretary of state could, for example, target conservative activists or religious organizations under the same standards.
