Mast Makes U-Turn: Rubio's Passport Revocation Power Axed from Bill

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 his own bill that would strip the power from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to revoke American citizens' passports if they are deemed to have provided material support to terrorists. The move comes after widespread backlash from civil society groups and media outlets, including The Intercepts, which published a scathing critique of the proposal on Sunday. According to Mast's office, the amendment was introduced in response to "concerns raised by constituents" about the provision. "We're listening to our constituents and making adjustments as needed," Mast said in a statement. "We want to ensure that we're protecting American interests while also upholding the rights of U.S. citizens." The original bill, which was introduced last week as part of a larger State Department reorganization package, would have given Rubio the authority to revoke passports from individuals deemed to be providing material support to terrorist organizations. Critics argued that this provision would effectively give Rubio "thought police" powers and undermine civil liberties. "This is a huge victory for civil society," said Sarah Wolfson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "We're glad to see Rep. Mast listening to concerns about this provision and taking steps to address them." The bill's future remains uncertain, as it still needs to be approved by the House and Senate before it can become law. The Senate has expressed reservations about the proposal, with some lawmakers calling it an overreach of executive authority. Mast's office said that the amendment will be considered at a Wednesday hearing, where it must be approved in order to take effect. If passed, the revised bill would still need to clear the Senate and be signed into law by President Joe Biden. The controversy surrounding the proposal has sparked a heated debate about the balance between national security and civil liberties. Critics argue that the provision would chill free speech and create a climate of fear among U.S. citizens who may be critical of Israel or other foreign governments. "This is a classic example of how Congress can overstep its authority and undermine fundamental rights," said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a vocal critic of the proposal. "We need to be careful not to sacrifice our values for the sake of politics." As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the fate of this bill hangs in the balance, and only time will tell if it will become law. Background: The original bill was introduced as part of a larger State Department reorganization package aimed at improving U.S. foreign policy and national security. However, critics argue that the provision would create a new era of "thought police" powers, undermining civil liberties and free speech. Current Status: The revised bill, with the amendment stripping the passport-revocation provision, must still be approved by the House and Senate before it can become law. A Wednesday hearing will determine whether the amendment takes effect. Next Developments: The fate of this bill hangs in the balance as lawmakers continue to debate its merits. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story. *Reporting by Theintercept.*