Bill Would Give Rubio Authority to Revoke Passports for Terrorism

(FLORIDA, UNITED STATES) A 2025 bill by Rep. Brian Mast (R‑Fla.) would give Secretary of State Marco Rubio broad power to order passport revocation or denial for Americans accused of providing “material support” to terrorism—even if they have never been charged, tried, or convicted. The proposal is set for a House hearing and, as of September 13, 2025, has not become law. It has already sparked a fierce fight over free speech, due process, and what critics call a move toward “thought police” authority inside the executive branch.

Supporters frame the measure as a national security tool to keep suspected terrorists and traffickers from traveling. Opponents, including the ACLU and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, warn the bill’s vague language invites political abuse. They argue it could be turned on journalists, activists, and ordinary travelers whose views or associations are unpopular—not just on people who pose actual security threats.

How current law compares

Under existing law, courts can order passport restrictions after a conviction for terrorism-related crimes. The proposed bill would go further by putting that power in the hands of the Secretary of State with no court oversight.

Civil liberties lawyers say that change would remove longstanding safeguards that require evidence to be weighed by a neutral judge before someone loses a core tool for movement and identification in the United States 🇺🇸 and abroad.

Two tracks in Mast’s bill

Mast’s bill lays out two tracks:

1. The Secretary could deny or cancel a passport for anyone convicted—or even just charged—with providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist group.
2. The Secretary could make a unilateral determination that a person has “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support” to such a group and revoke or deny a passport without any criminal case at all.

The second track is the flashpoint for the civil liberties debate.

Critics say the measure offers no clear standards for how the Secretary would make those calls. The bill’s appeal process runs only back to the Secretary of State, not to an independent body. In practice, the same official who decides to take your passport would be the only person who can give it back.

Seth Stern of the Freedom of the Press Foundation said it would set up “thought policing at the hands of one individual,” inviting a system where the Secretary acts as “judge, jury, and executioner.”

State Department and precedent concerns

The State Department has declined to discuss draft legislation in detail but has defended strong travel controls in the name of counterterrorism. Secretary Rubio has already used executive tools to pull visas and green cards in high-profile cases tied to political speech on campus, including actions involving Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, according to advocates following those cases.

Those immigration-based moves—while distinct from passport law—fuel concern that a new passport power could reach beyond criminal conduct to punish speech or associations.

Ambiguities around “material support”

Backers insist that “material support” is a known legal term anchored in federal statute. Defense lawyers counter that the concept is broad and has in past cases included:

• translation
• small donations
• attending meetings

Even when the person says they had no intent to help terrorism. When that flexible label is paired with the ability to trigger passport revocation without a judge, critics warn it’s a recipe for collateral damage.

Comparison with other passport-related powers

The bill arrives in a year when the federal government has acted more aggressively on travel documents. For example:

• Under the FAST Act of 2015, the IRS can prompt passport action for people with large, overdue tax debts.
  • That program includes notice and a path to fix the problem before a passport is canceled.
• By contrast, Mast’s proposal does not spell out transparent criteria, timelines, or independent review—only a direct appeal back to the Secretary.

Rights and practical impacts

Analysis by VisaVerge.com highlights the controversy centers on two long-recognized rights:

• The right to travel
• The right to speak, even when that speech is unpopular

A passport serves as both a travel document and a routine form of ID. Losing it can:

• block international travel
• complicate banking and employment checks
• strand U.S. citizens abroad who need consular help

For immigrants with dual nationality or those working toward citizenship, one family member’s passport loss can disrupt family plans, funerals, weddings, or cross-border caregiving.

Civil liberties groups fear enforcement would fall hardest on communities already under heavy scrutiny. They point to the history of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian Americans facing extra checks, watchlist errors, and visa delays since 2001. They also cite recent speech-related immigration actions during the Trump administration and under Secretary Rubio, including steps that affected pro‑Palestinian activists.

Journalists at risk say the bill could chill reporting on conflict zones or interviews with controversial sources if basic newsgathering is painted as “support.”

Likely real-world scenarios cited by immigration lawyers

• A U.S. citizen returns from study abroad and finds their passport canceled at the airport based on social media posts, small donations to a charity later listed as tied to a foreign group, or attendance at a campus meeting flagged by an informant.
• A green card holder married to a U.S. citizen sees the spouse’s passport pulled, forcing canceled trips and job loss overseas.
• Even without criminal charges, the stain of a terrorism-linked passport revocation could harm employment, banking, and schooling opportunities.

If the State Department cancels a passport while someone is overseas, consular officers usually issue a one-way travel document for return to the United States. Because the bill keeps all discretion within the State Department, travelers fear they could be stranded awaiting a final decision from the very office that labeled them a security risk, with no judge to hear the matter.

Supporters’ argument

Supporters, led by Mast and echoed by Secretary Rubio, argue:

• Speed and flexibility are necessary when people suspected of aiding terrorists might flee or move money.
• The bill would help close gaps that allow suspects to travel while cases are pending or while intelligence points to risk that may not be easy to present in court.
• Passport control is a targeted tool: it does not equal a criminal conviction, and people remain free inside the country.

Opponents’ counterarguments

Opponents reply:

• Freedom at home means little if the government can cancel a core identity document based on secret criteria and no neutral hearing.
• They demand, at minimum:
  • an independent review panel
  • a right to court review after the Secretary’s decision

Until such guardrails exist, critics say the measure invites arbitrary action and a dangerous expansion of executive power—what many describe as a path to thought police.

Policy Powers Sought (summary)

• Revocation or denial after a conviction or charge: The Secretary could act when someone is convicted—or simply charged—with material support for a designated foreign terrorist organization.
• Unilateral action without charges: The Secretary could decide that a person “knowingly” gave material support and order passport revocation or denial without any criminal case.
• Appeal to the same authority: The only appeal is back to the Secretary, with no independent tribunal or court review specified in the bill’s current form.

Legal scholars note Congress has previously tied passports to certain debts and criminal outcomes, but those systems include notice and outside review. Merging an expansive material support standard with sole-secretary control would mark a sharp break from that model and, critics say, sideline the judiciary from decisions that touch core liberty interests.

What happens next

• The House is expected to take testimony from security officials, civil rights advocates, and legal experts in the coming weeks.
• Lawmakers from both parties have signaled unease about the appeals structure and have floated amendments to:
  • add clear criteria
  • set timelines
  • require judicial review
  • narrow the definition of material support to exclude protected speech and association
  • require a criminal charge before any passport revocation

For families and employers, the uncertainty is already causing planning problems:

• Universities report students with overseas programs asking whether past activism could create trouble at the border.
• Companies fear employees could lose passports suddenly, disrupting contracts and supply chains.
• Community leaders report rising fear among people who send small remittances to relatives in conflict zones.

Those seeking official updates can track the bill’s movement and text on congress.gov. The U.S. Department of State posts policy announcements and press guidance on state.gov.

Central questions as hearings begin

• Can a government determined to stop terror also avoid punishing speech and association?
• Should one official decide when a citizen’s passport is taken, with no judge in the loop?
• If Congress opens the door now, what happens when a future administration expands that power to new targets in a more heated political moment?

Those answers will shape the reach of American passports—and the meaning of dissent—for years to come.