Yes, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a bill on September 10, 2025, as part of a broader bipartisan accountability, counterterrorism, and national security. The passport revocation clause specifically targets those aiding terrorist groups, but critics argue the language is overly broad and vague, potentially allowing it to be applied to political speech or activism without full due process. For example, it could encompass individuals merely charged with material support, not just convicted ones.

- Appeal Process: Affected citizens would have 60 days to appeal the decision directly to the Secretary of State, though advocates like the ACLU note this lacks meaningful oversight, as the same official who revoked the passport would review the appeal.

- Hearing Schedule: The bill is set for a committee hearing on September 17, 2025, but it has not yet passed the House or advanced further.

### Controversy and Criticisms

Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU and Freedom of the Press Foundation, have raised alarms that the provision could enable "thought policing" by conflating criticism of U.S. foreign policy—particularly regarding Israel—with terrorism support. This fear stems from recent actions by Rubio, who has revoked visas and green cards from foreign nationals (e.g., a Turkish student and a Columbia protest leader) over opinion pieces or activism deemed anti-Israel. Mast, a former IDF soldier who has received over $700,000 from pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, has previously advocated for deporting "terrorist sympathizers." Supporters, however, frame it as a targeted tool against actual threats like terrorists and human traffickers.

The bill has sparked widespread discussion on X, with users decrying it as a threat to First Amendment rights and equating it to authoritarian overreach. It remains in early stages and could face amendments or legal challenges if it advances.