Marco Rubio's Passport Power Play Derailed by GOP Rep's Surprise Move

GOP Rep. Backtracks on Bill That Could Let Marco Rubio Revoke Passports From Israel Critics In a stunning reversal, Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., has introduced an amendment to strip a contentious provision from a State Department reorganization bill that would have given Secretary of State Marco Rubio the power to revoke American citizens' passports if they're deemed to have provided material support to terrorists. The move comes after widespread criticism from civil society groups and lawmakers alike, who decried the proposal as a threat to free speech and due process. The original provision was introduced last week as part of Mast's bill, which aimed to reorganize the State Department. "We're pleased that Rep. Mast has seen fit to back away from this draconian measure," said Rachel Goldsmith, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "This provision would have given the Secretary of State unfettered authority to revoke passports without due process or judicial review." The original bill sparked a heated debate on Capitol Hill, with some lawmakers arguing that it was an overreach of executive power. The proposal's introduction also drew comparisons to authoritarian regimes, where citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and passport privileges for speaking out against the government. Mast's amendment, introduced Sunday, would strip the provision from the bill entirely. However, the managers amendment itself must still be approved at a Wednesday hearing before it can take effect. The original bill is part of a larger effort to reorganize the State Department, which has been criticized for its inefficiencies and bureaucratic red tape. The bill aims to streamline operations and improve accountability within the department. However, critics argue that the provision would have given Rubio too much power, allowing him to revoke passports without due process or judicial review. This, they say, would be a threat to free speech and civil liberties. "We're not just talking about people who support terrorism," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a vocal critic of the original provision. "We're talking about people who speak out against Israeli policies in the occupied territories or criticize the government's handling of human rights abuses." The bill itself faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where it will need to be approved before it can become law. In related news, a separate bill passed by the House last week would punish politically motivated boycotts of Israel. The measure has been criticized by civil society groups and some lawmakers as an attempt to stifle free speech and criticism of Israeli policies. The current status of Mast's amendment is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the controversy surrounding the original provision has sparked a heated debate on Capitol Hill about the balance between national security and individual liberties. *Reporting by Theintercept.*