Washington, D.C. – The House Foreign Affairs Committee is taking steps to remove a controversial provision from the proposed State Department reform bill, which would have granted the U.S. Secretary of State broad authority to revoke passports of Americans suspected of supporting terrorist organizations.
Historic Performances at World Athletics Championships: McLaughlin-Levrone and Kipyegon Shine
What Happened
On Tuesday, Representative Brian Mast (R-FL) filed an amendment to eliminate the contentious clause. The original provision would have allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to cancel or deny passports of U.S. citizens on suspicion of providing “material assistance” to terrorist groups.
Civil liberties advocates raised concerns that the measure could lead to arbitrary targeting, particularly of Palestinian activists, and potentially violate constitutional rights. Mast’s amendment reflects growing attention to civil liberties and oversight in foreign policy legislation.
Who Was Affected by the Provision
The passport revocation clause was part of a broader Trump-era initiative within the State Department. Critics argued that similar measures had already disproportionately affected pro-Palestinian activists, international students, and other groups engaged in advocacy.
Under the proposed law, American citizens could face passport cancellation without sufficient due process, increasing fears of potential misuse. Mast’s amendment aims to balance the objectives of State Department reform with protections for constitutional rights.
Background on Representative Brian Mast
Initially, Mast defended the broader reform bill, emphasizing that it aligned with Trump administration foreign policy goals. However, growing concerns about civil liberties and the potential for abuse prompted him to act to remove the passport revocation clause.
The amendment demonstrates a shift in the committee’s approach—supporting State Department reform while addressing public concerns about rights and oversight.
Public and Social Media Reactions
The provision drew widespread criticism from civil rights groups, including the ACLU, who argued it could allow arbitrary government action without adequate evidence or due process. On social media, many voiced fears of targeting political activists and minority groups, citing previous Trump administration measures as precedent.
Legal experts warned that such a clause could violate principles of due process and risk stripping citizens of their rights without proper judicial review.
Official Statement and What Happens Next
The amendment is scheduled for committee discussion on Wednesday. If approved, the passport cancellation clause will be removed from the bill. Other parts of the State Department reform package—including provisions on foreign policy designations—still face uncertainty as the legislation moves through Congress and toward Senate review.
Committee members continue to focus on strengthening the State Department’s role while ensuring oversight and protection of American citizens’ rights.
Conclusion
The move to remove the passport revocation clause highlights the tension between national security powers and civil liberties. While the broader reform bill remains under review, Mast’s amendment underscores the importance of constitutional protections in legislative processes.