PhilipTheBucket

This isn’t anything that actually needed to be done. The federal government has plenty of options at its disposal if it thinks someone is providing material support for terrorism. It’s one of things that keeps the FBI loaded up with anti-terrorism dollars, thanks to its ability to radicalize people just so it can arrest them.

But it’s the expected forward movement by the Trump administration, which has empowered the State Department to engage in thought policing when deciding who’s allowed to enter this country, much less stay here for any length of time. The State Department, under diversity hire Marco Rubio, has already made it clear it will be searching applicants’ social media accounts for “anti-American sentiment” when considering visa requests.

Now, another useful idiot who wants to be noticed by President Trump has introduced a bill that will allow the administration to convert a false equivalent into actions that will limit travel options for US citizens. Matt Sledge has the details at The Intercept:

In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stripped Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk’s of her visa based on what a court later found was nothing more than her opinion piece critical of Israel.

Now, a bill introduced by the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is ringing alarm bells for civil liberties advocates who say it would grant Rubio the power to revoke the passports of American citizens on similar grounds.

The provision, sponsored by Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., as part of a larger State Department reorganization, is set for a hearing Wednesday.

Here’s a bit of background on Rep. Brian Mast:

Mast is “a vocal supporter of Israel and Israelis”, reported The Times of Israel during his 2016 campaign. “If anyone was lobbing rockets into the US, guys like me would be sent to kill them, and Americans would applaud us,” he said.[18] In January 2015, Mast volunteered with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) through Sar-El, working at a base outside Tel Aviv packing medical kits and moving supplies.[18][80] Following the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Mast wore his IDF uniform in Congress.[81][82]

On November 1, 2023, in arguing for a bill to reduce humanitarian funding to Gaza during the Gaza war, Mast compared Palestinian civilians to the civilians of Nazi Germany…

Given that, it makes sense that Rep. Mast would craft a bill that deliberately treats criticism of Israel as indistinguishable from “material support” for US-recognized terrorist group, Hamas. After all, that’s the same position so many people in the Trump administration take, following their leader down the path of false equivalence that takes the stance that it’s impossible to criticize Israel’s actions without explicitly supporting violent acts of terrorism by Hamas.

This bill doesn’t even limit itself to “material” support. While it does tip its hat to the numerous existing laws that strip those convicted of material support of travel privileges as well as anything else resulting from being imprisoned on felony charges, it also expands the government’s power by allowing the State Department to deny passports to US citizens based almost solely on things they’ve said:

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.”

“Material” support — when used by the government to lock up people it just doesn’t like — never has to be as “material” as that word tends to suggest. It can be almost anything, including engaging in pro-Palestinian protests because this administration has chosen to view anything remotely anti-Israel as, at the very least, antisemitic (triggering other civil rights laws). At worst, the government takes the stance that expressing support for Palestinians is the same thing as backing a foreign terrorist organization.

The negative outcomes of this bill aren’t imaginary. Even without this legislation, we’ve already seen this administration attempt to criminalize journalism just because reports showed Americans things the Trump administration would have preferred to keep hidden for as long as possible as it threw its considerable weight entirely behind an Israeli government that seemed to prefer genocide to compromise.

The provision particularly threatens journalists, [Freedom of the Press Foundation director Seth] Stern said. He noted that Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., in November 2023 demanded a Justice Department “national security investigation” of The Associated Press, CNN, New York Times, and Reuters over freelance photographers’ images of the October 7 attacks.

That this never amounted to anything has more to say about Joe Biden still being in office than it says about the DOJ’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The DOJ is now front-loaded with Trump-loving toadies, which means the only discretion it will ever exercise is deciding how much to redact from reports involving possible criminal acts by administration officials or trying to figure out how to lock up college professors for daring to deliver factual information to students.

The wording of the bill may lead people to believe this is just another solid anti-terrorism effort, but the people backing it and praising it make it clear it’s about something else entirely: punishing people for holding views that don’t align with King Trump and his pro-genocide statesmanship.