Trump Administration Wants to Revoke the Passports of U.S. Citizens It Doesn't Like

A bill has been introduced in the GOP-controlled Congress that could potentially be used to deny U.S. citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech, including for criticism of Israel.  The bill would grant Secretary of State Marco Rubio the power to revoke the passports of U.S. citizens in the same way he has revoked the green cards and visas of foreign nationals in the US for criticizing Israel.

In March, Rubio revoked the visa of Turkish doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk after she wrote an opinion piece critical of Israel in the Tufts University student newspaper in 2024.  The op-ed did not mention Hamas, but called for boycotting and divesting from Israel.

One section of the bill grants the Secretary of State the ability to deny passports to people determined to have “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”  The reference to “material support” disturbs civil liberties advocates because it is vague and can be interpreted to include speech and anti-war activism.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), (which is widely believed to function  as a front for Israeli intelligence in the U.S.) and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law suggested in a letter last year that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) was providing “material support” for Hamas by organizing campus protests against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.  So much for free speech!

The provision regarding "material support" to terrorism also poses a threat specifically to journalists, The Intercept noted.  In 2023, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas demanded a Justice Department “national security investigation” of AP, CNN, The New York Times, and Reuters after they published photos taken by freelance photographers during the Hamas attack on Israeli settlements and military bases on 7 October 2023.

Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU and the Freedom of the Press Foundation contend that the bill undermines due process and could punish speech.  Concerns have also been raised that the bill's appeals process is insufficient, as appeals would be reviewed by the same individual who made the initial decision. Advocates worry that the "material support" language could endanger journalists and human rights activists who report on designated organizations.