SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
brian mast
New 'Thought Policing' Bill May Let Rubio Strip Passports from US Citizens Over Political Speech
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” said one free speech advocate.
Sep 13, 2025
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about a bill in the US House of Representatives that they fear could allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio to strip US citizens of their passports based purely on political speech.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), will come up for a hearing on Wednesday. According to The Intercept:
Mast’s 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—or merely charged—of material support for terrorism...
The other section sidesteps the legal process entirely. Rather, the secretary of state would be able to deny passports to people whom they determine “has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”
Rubio has previously boasted of stripping the visas and green cards from several immigrants based purely on their peaceful expression of pro-Palestine views, describing them as "Hamas supporters."
These include Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after Rubio voided his green card; and Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts student whose visa Rubio revoked after she co-wrote an op-ed calling for her school to divest from Israel.
Mast—a former soldier for the Israel Defense Forces who once stated that babies were "not innocent Palestinian civilians"—has previously called for "kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country," speaking about the Trump administration's attempts to deport Khalil, who was never convicted or even charged with support for a terrorist group.
Critics have argued that the bill has little reason to exist other than to allow the Secretary of State to unilaterally strip passports from people without them actually having been convicted of a crime.
As Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted in The Intercept, there is little reason to restrict people convicted of terrorism or material support for terrorism, since—if they were guilty—they'd likely be serving a long prison sentence and incapable of traveling anyway.
“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,” he said.
Journalist Zaid Jilani noted on X 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."
The bill does contain a clause allowing those stripped of their passports to appeal to Rubio. But, as Hamadanchy notes, the decision is up to the secretary alone, "who has already made this determination." He said that for determining who is liable to have their visa stripped, "There's no standard set. There’s nothing."
As Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted in The Intercept, the language in Mast's bill is strikingly similar to that found in the so-called "nonprofit killer" provision that Republicans attempted to pass in July's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act. That provision, which was ultimately struck from the bill, would have allowed the Treasury Secretary to unilaterally strip nonprofit status from anything he deemed to be a "terrorist-supporting organization."
Stern said Mast's bill would allow for "thought policing at the hands of one individual."
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” he said, "even if what they say doesn’t include a word about a terrorist organization or terrorism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
80+ Groups Urge Congress, Trump to Reconsider Sanctions on ICC
"It would be a terrible irony if a tool designed to penalize gross violators of human rights could instead contribute to their continued impunity."
Jan 06, 2025
Scores of advocacy groups on Monday published a joint open letter decrying proposed U.S. legislation targeting the International Criminal Court with sanctions in retaliation for the tribunal's recent issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court published the letter—which has been signed by over 80 groups as of Monday afternoon—stressing that "the ICC performs a vital role in international affairs by investigating the worst international crimes that shock the collective conscience of humanity and investigating those accused of committing those crimes."
"The positive role of the ICC has been recognized through previous bipartisan support."
"It does so in a manner that protects the due process rights of the accused, the sovereignty of states, including the United States, and the rights of victims," the letter asserts. "As has been widely observed, supporting the work of the court is in the interest of the United States, and sanctioning it, conversely, undermines important U.S. interests."
"The positive role of the ICC has been recognized through previous bipartisan support for investigations into war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Russian officials in the Ukraine conflict... attempts to bring justice for the victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and as a pathway to accountability for perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan," the letter adds.
On Friday far-right Congressmen Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Brian Mast (R-Fla.) introduced H.R. 23, the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, which would "impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies."
The bill, which was fast-tracked by the 119th House rules package, was initially approved last June by the Republican-controlled lower chamber with the support of 42 Democratic lawmakers. However, the measure failed to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. Republicans now control both houses of Congress.
"As human rights, legal, and faith-based organizations, the foundations of civil society, as well as individuals who have dedicated their careers to these causes, we decry attempts to attack an independent judicial institution and urge the 119th Congress and incoming administration to reconsider this misguided position," the letter's signers asserted.
Signatories include the ACLU, Al Haq, Amnesty International USA, Center for Constitutional Rights, Democracy for the Arab World Now, Human Rights Watch, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, Physicians for Human Rights, and Veterans for Peace.
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.
Outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden and Republican President-elect Donald Trump have both condemned the ICC's effort to arrest Israeli leaders, although Biden has spoken out against H.R. 23.
Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), Trump's pick for national security adviser, is a vocal supporter of Israel's 15-month assault on Gaza, which has left more than 165,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing. Waltz, who supports the sanctions bill, threatened a "strong response" to the tribunal's warrants.
The United States—which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in
armed aid and diplomatic cover—has reportedly worked with Israel to thwart the ICC's effort to arrest Israeli leaders.
Neither Israel or the U.S. are signatories to the
Rome Statute, the treaty underpinning the ICC. However, Palestine is a party to the treaty, and nonsignatories can be held liable for crimes committed there.
The U.S. has a decadeslong history of antagonism toward the ICC. Under the American Service Members' Protection Act—Bush administration-era legislation also known as the Hague Invasion Act—the president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate" including military intervention to secure the release of American or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the ICC.
In 2019, Trump revoked the U.S. visa of then-ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda for trying to investigate alleged war crimes committed by American forces in Afghanistan. The following year, the Trump administration sanctioned Bensouda and Phakiso Mochochoko, the court's prosecution jurisdiction division director at the time.
"At an historical moment when the global rule of law is under attack from multiple fronts, institutions like the International Criminal Court are needed more than ever to advance human rights protections and the universal goal of preventing future atrocities and advancing justice for victims," the new letter's signers argued.
"Instead, sanctions send a signal that could embolden authoritarian regimes and others with reason to fear accountability who seek to evade justice," the letter continues. "It is essential that the United States answer any allegation of wrongdoing in a manner that does not betray the cause of global justice, abandon international cooperation, or compromise support for human dignity and rights."
"It would be a terrible irony if a tool designed to penalize gross violators of human rights could instead contribute to their continued impunity," the letter concludes. "We urge other governments, members of Congress, and advocates for victims everywhere to raise their voices to oppose attacks on the independence and autonomy of international judicial institutions like the ICC. We invite allies of justice to join us in standing against these destructive measures."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Majority of Americans Want a Cease-Fire in Gaza; Elected Officials Should Listen
The U.S. must stop funding this assault, which will only lead to the loss of more Palestinian and Israeli lives—and exacerbate the rising Islamophobia and antisemitism that have no place in our society.
Nov 09, 2023
Two years ago, filmmaker Mohannad Abu Rizk asked children in Gaza about their dreams. One young girl responded, “My dream is for us to stay alive and to live in peace. We have a right to stay alive.”
She’s one of the 2.2 million Palestinians living in the densely populated Gaza Strip under a 56-year Israeli occupation—and a 16-year blockade that deprives them of food, water, electricity, and freedom of movement. International rights groups now classify it as an apartheid system.
She’s also one of the Palestinians Israeli officials called “human animals” and “children of darkness” as bombs fell on Gaza. It’s unclear if this girl with the big, soulful brown eyes is still alive, but about half of the over 10,000 Gazans killed by the Israeli military are children.
Despite efforts to smear and silence them, people are standing up for basic human dignity.
All human lives are precious. The murder of over a thousand Israelis by Hamas on October 7 was a heinous crime. Israeli families deserve justice and the safe return of their loved ones held hostage. But indiscriminately bombing and collectively punishing Palestinian civilians—who are neither synonymous with Hamas nor responsible for their crimes—accomplishes neither.
For most Americans, that’s not a controversial opinion. In a recent survey, 66% of Americans supported an immediate cease-fire as a step toward peace and justice for both Palestinians and Israelis.
Unfortunately, our elected officials aren’t listening—yet.
Instead of backing a cease-fire, President Joe Biden requested $14.3 billion in military assistance to Israel above the $3.8 billion taxpayers already send each year. And when a few House Democrats, including Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), called for a cease-fire in October, the White House press secretary didn’t hold back: “We believe they’re repugnant and we believe they’re disgraceful.”
The GOP rhetoric has been even more repulsive. Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) compared “innocent Palestinians” to “innocent Nazis” while Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) called for Gaza to be “eviscerated” and “turned into a parking lot.” Instead of working for peace, House Republicans have focused their energies on a bad faith censure of Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress.
This dehumanizing and dangerous rhetoric fuels hate crimes that have escalated against Arab and Muslim Americans since October 7—including the murder of 6-year-old Palestinian American Wadea Al-Fayoume and the attempted murder of his mother in Illinois. Recently, a Muslim student at Stanford was hospitalized after being struck by a car in a suspected hate crime.
The war’s reverberations can also be felt in the chilling climate of fear and repression that painfully reminds Arab Americans and Muslims like myself of the days following the 9/11 attacks. College students have faced doxxing and harassment for signing statements supporting Palestinians or criticizing the Israeli government. Others have lost job offers.
But despite efforts to smear and silence them, people are standing up for basic human dignity. Tens of thousands of Americans marched in Washington, D.C. on November 4 to support a cease-fire. The movement for a cease-fire continues to grow around the country.
Veteran State Department official Josh Paul resigned in protest on October 17, calling the U.S. rush to supply Israel with more arms “shortsighted, destructive, unjust, and contradictory to the very values that we publicly espouse.” And over 400 congressional staffers signed a statement demanding a cease-fire in Gaza.
Gaza is facing a humanitarian catastrophe. There is no food, water, or safety. Many experts have warned that a likely genocide is underway. The U.S. must stop funding this assault, which will only lead to the loss of more Palestinian and Israeli lives—and exacerbate the rising Islamophobia and antisemitism that have no place in our society.
Our elected officials must listen to the majority of American people who are demanding peace so that Palestinians can live freely, instead of dreaming about it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular