\n<\/p>\n
In March,<\/span> Secretary of State Marco Rubio stripped Turkish doctoral student R\u00fcmeysa \u00d6zt\u00fcrk of her visa based on what a court later found was nothing more than her opinion piece<\/a> critical of Israel.<\/p>\n Now, a bill introduced by the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is ringing alarm bells for civil liberties advocates who say it would grant Rubio the power to revoke the passports of American citizens on similar grounds.<\/p>\n The provision, sponsored by Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., as part of a larger State Department reorganization, is set for a hearing<\/a> Wednesday. <\/p>\n Mast\u2019s legislation says that it takes aim at \u201cterrorists and traffickers,\u201d but critics say it could be used to deny American citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech. (The State Department said it doesn\u2019t comment on pending legislation.) \u201cRubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cMarco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,\u201d Stern said, \u201ceven if what they say doesn\u2019t include a word about a terrorist organization or terrorism.\u201d<\/p>\n Mast, for his part, has publicly voiced his support<\/a> for \u201ckicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country.\u201d At the time, he was talking about deporting Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green-card holder who the Trump administration detained and attempted to deport<\/a> based on what critics of the move<\/a> said were his pro-Palestine views<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mast\u2019s new bill claims to target a narrow set of people. One section grants the secretary of state the power to revoke or refuse to issue passports for people who have been convicted of \u2014 or merely charged with \u2014 material support for terrorism. (Mast\u2019s office did not respond to a request for comment.)<\/p>\n Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that language would accomplish little in practice, since terror convictions come with stiff prison sentences and pre-trial defendants are typically denied bail.<\/p>\n The other section sidesteps the legal process entirely. Rather, the secretary of state would be able to deny passports to people whom they determine \u201chas knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.\u201d<\/p>\n The reference to \u201cmaterial support\u201d disturbed advocates who have long warned that the government can misuse statutes criminalizing \u201cmaterial support\u201d for terrorists \u2014 first passed after the 1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombing and toughened after the 9\/11 attacks \u2014 to punish speech. The government even deemed a woman who was kidnapped and forced to cook and clean for Salvadoran guerrillas a material supporter of terrorism, in order to justify her deportation.<\/a><\/p>\n Since the October 7 Hamas attacks, pro-Israel lawmakers and activists have ratcheted up attempts to expand the scope and use of anti-terror laws.<\/p>\n The Anti-Defamation League<\/a> and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law suggested in a letter<\/a> last year that Students for Justice in Palestine was providing \u201cmaterial support\u201d for Hamas through its on-campus activism.<\/p>\n Lawmakers also tried to pass a \u201cnonprofit killer\u201d bill<\/a> that would allow the treasury secretary to strip groups of their charitable status if they are deemed a \u201cterrorist-supporting organization.\u201d The bill was beaten back by a coalition of nonprofit groups, most recently during the debate over the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill.<\/a><\/p>\n Mast\u2019s bill contains eerily similar language, Stern said.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is an angle that lawmakers on the right seem intent on pursuing \u2014 whether through last year\u2019s nonprofit killer bill, or a bill like this,\u201d Stern said.<\/p>\n The provision particularly threatens journalists, Stern said. He noted that Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., in November 2023 demanded a Justice Department \u201cnational security investigation\u201d<\/a> of The Associated Press, CNN, New York Times, and Reuters over freelance photographers\u2019 images of the October 7 attacks.<\/p>\n Rubio also revoked \u00d6zt\u00fcrk\u2019s visa on what appears to be nothing more than an op-ed she wrote for the Tufts University student newspaper in 2024 \u2014 which did not mention Hamas<\/a> \u2014 calling on the school to divest from companies tied to Israel<\/a>.<\/p>\n Since taking office, Rubio has also added groups to the State Department\u2019s list of foreign terrorist organizations at a blistering pace, focusing largely on gangs and drug cartels <\/a>that were previously the domain of the criminal legal system.
\n<\/p>\n
\nSeth Stern, the director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said the bill would open the door to \u201cthought policing at the hands of one individual.\u201d<\/p>\nVague \u201cTerrorist\u201d Designations<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nSome of those fears have been borne out. The Supreme Court ruled in 2010<\/a> that even offering advice about international law to designated terror groups could be classified as material support.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n