By News Editor 
What if speaking your mind could cost you your ability to travel? That’s what critics are warning could happen if a recently proposed U.S. bill becomes law—a law that might empower the Secretary of State to revoke or deny passports to U.S. citizens based on what they say.
What’s Going On
- The proposed bill is called the Department of State Policy Provisions Act. It was introduced September 11, 2025 by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) and is now being considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
- Among its controversial provisions: the bill would give the Secretary of State the authority to revoke or refuse to issue passports to U.S. citizens who have “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support” to a foreign terrorist organization—whether they have been convicted or merely charged.
- More alarmingly to free speech advocates, the criteria for revocation or denial of a passport could be based purely on speech or political expression—even without a court conviction or full judicial process.
On the surface, the biggest issue is the ability for the Secretary of State to take your passport unilaterally over potential charges or accusations. Under Section 4, the Secretary would have the power to deny or revoke under mere suspicion. Here’s a piece of the bill below:
SEC. 4. Authority to deny or revoke passport to individuals providing material support for terrorism.
“(1) ISSUANCE.—Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of State shall refuse to issue a passport to any individual who—
“(A) has been charged with or convicted of a violation of section 2339A or 2339B of title 18, United States Code; or
“(B) the Secretary determines has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).
“(2) REVOCATION.—The Secretary of State shall, except as provided in paragraph (3)(A), revoke a passport previously issued to any individual described in paragraph (1).
Why People Are Alarmed
There are lots of obvious concers around due process. Under current law, penalties like revoking a passport typically require some legal process—court orders, evidence, convictions. Critics say this bill could allow passport takedowns simply based on determinations by the executive branch, without proper judicial oversight.
Additionally, with fewer controls and increased posturing around stripping people’s legal status over free speech, many are fearful that such a powerful law would lead to a chilling effect. People might be punished for expressing dissenting views, criticizing foreign policy, or associating with certain ideas—even if those ideas are controversial or unpopular, but not illegal. That raises serious First Amendment questions.
There is legal history around passport revocations for national security or foreign policy reasons. For example, the Supreme Court’s decision in Haig v. Agee (1981) upheld the executive’s power to revoke a passport on national security grounds.