GOP Bill Would Grant Rubio Sweeping Authority to Strip Americans' Passports Over Political Speech

Republican Representative Brian Mast introduced legislation Monday that would give Secretary of State Marco Rubio unprecedented power to revoke U.S. citizens' passports without judicial oversight, sparking fierce opposition from civil liberties groups who warn the measure could weaponize travel restrictions against political dissent.

The Department of State Policy Provisions Act (H.R. 5300), scheduled for a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday, would authorize the secretary to deny or revoke passports from anyone they determine has provided "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations—even without criminal charges or court proceedings.

"Thought Police" Powers Alarm Free Speech Advocates

Civil liberties organizations are sounding urgent warnings about the bill's potential for abuse, particularly given Rubio's recent track record of targeting individuals based on political expression. In March 2025, Rubio revoked Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk's visa after she published an opinion piece critical of Israel, a decision later struck down by a federal court.

"This would allow thought policing at the hands of one individual," Seth Stern, advocacy director at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told The Intercept. "Marco 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 or terrorism".

The legislation sidesteps existing legal frameworks that already prosecute material support cases through the court system, creating what critics describe as an extrajudicial process controlled entirely by the executive branch.

Vague Language Raises Constitutional Concerns

The bill's broad language has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts who argue it could criminalize constitutionally protected speech and peaceful activism. Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, expressed skepticism about the measure's necessity, according to The Intercept.

"I can't imagine that 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," Hamadanchy said.

The legislation includes two key provisions: one targeting individuals convicted or merely charged with material support for terrorism, and another allowing the secretary to act based solely on their own determination of support, without requiring criminal prosecution or evidence presented in court.

Illusory Appeals Process Criticized

While the bill includes a 60-day appeal mechanism, critics argue that it provides no meaningful protection, as appeals would go directly back to the secretary who made the initial decision. Hamadanchy described the safeguard as essentially meaningless, telling reporters there are "no standards set" for the determination process.

Journalist Zaid Jilani highlighted the constitutional implications on social media, noting 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".

Committee Considers Amendment Following Backlash

Facing mounting criticism, a House Foreign Affairs Committee spokesperson told Newsweek that leadership is "contemplating an amendment to exclude" the controversial provision from the bill during Wednesday's markup of H.R. 5300.

The spokesperson defended the measure as "merely a minor element of a broader, comprehensive Department Authorization," arguing that preventing individuals who aid traffickers and terrorists from leaving the country "should not spark controversy".

However, Chairman Mast's office acknowledged the intense scrutiny, stating the committee "will not allow this issue to distract from our bipartisan initiative to restore authority over the State Department to the Secretary".

Echoes of Failed "Nonprofit Killer" Provision

The passport legislation bears striking similarities to the so-called "nonprofit killer" provision that Republicans attempted to include in the comprehensive immigration bill passed in July. That measure, which would have allowed the Treasury Secretary to strip nonprofit status from organizations deemed "terrorist-supporting unilaterally," was ultimately removed following widespread opposition.

Free speech advocates worry the current bill represents another attempt to expand executive power over political expression through different administrative channels.

Broader Pattern of Travel Restrictions

The proposed legislation comes amid the Trump administration's sweeping expansion of travel restrictions, including a ban affecting citizens from 19 countries and the revocation of all visas for South Sudanese passport holders in April 2025. These policies have drawn criticism from immigrant rights groups who argue they unfairly target specific communities based on nationality and religion.

The passport bill represents a potential escalation, as it would, for the first time, allow the government to restrict Americans' travel based on political views rather than criminal convictions or national security classifications.

Constitutional Challenges Expected

Legal experts predict that if enacted, the legislation would face immediate constitutional challenges in federal court. The measure raises fundamental questions about due process rights, freedom of speech, and the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches.

As Wednesday's committee hearing approaches, civil liberties organizations are mobilizing opposition. At the same time, Republican leadership weighs whether to proceed with the controversial provision intact or bow to mounting pressure for amendments that would restore judicial oversight to the passport revocation process.