Rubio's Passport Power Grab

For what seems all too common in this administration, "national security" is being used as an excuse to expand state power and repress individual rights. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has backed legislation introduced by Representative Brian Mast giving Rubio unilateral power to revoke U.S. passports for citizens for providing "support" to terrorism. On paper, this may not seem like such a bad idea, and may seem like a good idea to ensure domestic security. In reality, the excuse of "supporting terrorism" has been used to punish political speech. This sentiment isn't hypothetical. Earlier this year, Rubio stripped Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk of her visa based on an op-ed that she wrote criticizing Israel. As a federal court ruled, the only act that Öztürk committed was one of free expression.

The legislation accomplishes little in practice against actual terrorists, since those convicted of terrorism would already be facing prison, and those awaiting trial are denied bail, but it would hand dangerous amounts of authority to the Zionist secretary of state. Ultimately, the legislation provides for thought policing at the authority of one individual: journalists who cover sensitive conflicts could see revoked passports for reporting facts unfavorable to the Trump administration. For example, in 2023, Senator Cotton demanded a Justice Department investigation into journalists from the Associated Press, CNN, the NYT, and Reuters over photos taken of the genocide in Gaza, clear examples of attacks on press freedom.

The danger of Mast's legislation comes from how vague the term "material support" has become. The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project has upheld the term meaning that even advising a group on peaceful conflict resolution could be considered material support. Beyond foreign policy, immigration authorities have applied the statute to victims, like branding a Salvadoran woman who was kidnapped and forced into domestic servitude as a "terrorist support." Zionist groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Brandeis Center have argued that any Pro-Palestinian voices, such as chapters of the Students for Justice in Palestine provide "material support" for Hamas due to their pro-Palestinian activism, an argument that opens the door to stripping passports from student organizers.

The historical precedent between this action is mixed. In Aptheker v. Secretary of State, the court ruled that blanket bans on Communist Party members from obtaining passports were unconstitutional attacks on free association under the First Amendment. However, more recent Supreme Court decisions have become increasingly partisan and based on the goals of the administration; Rubio's proposal is likely to be supported by a 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court, given past decisions.

Beyond silencing Palestinian voices, the implications for democracy are stark. Such a law blurs the line between dissent and disloyalty, and democracy and dictatorship. Academically, it discourages international research and reporting, as students and journalists would likely self-censor to protect their identity. Socially, it would likely cause even greater stigmatization of activist communities, and reinforce the idea that critique of Israel is tantamount to treason. Legally, it creates the precedent for future administrations, Republican or Democrat, to weaponize foreign policy on ideological opponents.

The American passport has long symbolized freedom and the basic rights to democracy. To make rights contingent on political obedience makes said rights meaningless. Rubio's supported legislation should be understood not just for what it is, but as a part of a broader authoritarian drift, one that makes it more of a state with less freedom for its citizens.