The bill would add a new section to the Passport Act of 1926 to authorize the denial or revocation of U.S. passports, including passport cards, for individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations or who knowingly provide material support to designated groups. It establishes eligibility criteria, outlines exceptions, and creates a formal process for review and potential restoration.
The measure also defines material support in broad terms and requires reporting to Congress on refusals, revocations, and related decisions. The bill frames these authorities as a national security tool with built-in due process and non-abridgment of First Amendment rights, while preserving the government’s ability to revoke passports.
If enacted, the law would give the Secretary of State new authority to deny issuance or revoke passports to those charged with or convicted under specific terrorism-related statutes or who have provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization. It adds limited pathways for return travel, humanitarian or emergency waivers, a hearing right within 60 days, and a potential restoration if acquittal or changed designation alters the original determination.
A 30-day reporting requirement to Congress accompanies these powers, along with sector-specific definitions and a severability clause to preserve the rest of the act if any provision is struck down.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Section 4 to the Passport Act to deny issuance or revoke passports (including passport cards) for individuals tied to foreign terrorist organizations or who provide material support, with narrow exceptions and a formal review process.
Who It Affects
The Secretary of State and passport-processing officials; individuals charged or convicted under terrorism-related statutes; and those designated as supporting foreign terrorist organizations.
Why It Matters
Sets a formal framework to restrict international travel for terrorism-related actors, signaling a tighter intersection of immigration, criminal, and national-security authorities while introducing due-process safeguards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The No Passports for Terrorists Act would extend the government’s ability to restrict travel by revoking or denying passports for people connected to foreign terrorist organizations or who provide material support to such groups. It would create a new Section 4 in the Passport Act of 1926, detailing when the Secretary of State can refuse to issue a passport or revoke an issued passport, and it would impose limited exceptions to these powers—such as for return trips to the United States or humanitarian emergencies.
The bill also establishes a right to a hearing within 60 days for individuals facing denial or revocation, and it allows restoration of a passport if acquittal occurs or if a prior finding changes. It requires annual or periodic reporting to Congress on refusals, revocations, and related actions, and it defines key terms like “material support.” It explicitly preserves First Amendment rights and clarifies that the new authority is not a blanket limitation on existing authorities to revoke a passport.
The provision is anchored to existing terrorism-related statutes and the designation framework under the Immigration and Nationality Act.In practice, the bill aligns travel restrictions with counterterrorism objectives while attempting to provide due process and oversight. It relies on targeted criteria (criminal charges or material support to a designated FTO) and introduces a structured process for review, restoration, and reporting, along with specific definitions to guide implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 4 to the Passport Act, enabling denial of passport issuance and revocation for certain terrorism-related cases.
Issuance is blocked for individuals charged with or convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2339A/B or for providing material support to designated FTOs.
There are limited exceptions for return travel and humanitarian emergencies.
There is a right to a hearing within 60 days, and restoration is possible if acquittal occurs or determinations change.
A reporting requirement to Congress accompanies the new authority, and definitions are provided for key terms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authority to Deny or Revoke Passports
Section 4 adds a new authority to the existing Passport Act of 1926 to deny issuance and revoke passports or passport cards for individuals who meet specified criteria related to terrorism. It establishes that the Secretary of State may withhold or revoke travel documents based on charges, convictions, or material support involving foreign terrorist organizations, subject to defined exceptions and due process.
Eligibility for Issuance and Revocation
Under subsection (a), the Secretary must withhold a passport issuance or revoke an issued passport for individuals who are charged with or convicted of terrorism-related offenses (as specified) or who knowingly provided material support to an FTO designated under the INA. This creates a concrete trigger tied to criminal or designation-based criteria.
Exceptions: Return Travel and Humanitarian Waivers
The bill allows limited return travel to the United States (or a limited passport) and provides a humanitarian or emergency waiver pathway, enabling issuance in exceptional circumstances. These carve-outs are intended to prevent absolute exclusion from travel in dire or humanitarian contexts.
Right of Review
Denied issuance or revocation can be appealed via a hearing requested within 60 days after notice. This establishes a concrete due-process mechanism to challenge a decision.
Right to Restoration
If acquittal occurs or the Secretary revises a determination, the Secretary may re-issue a passport, ensuring a remedy pathway when initial findings are reversed.
Reporting to Congress
The Secretary must report within 30 days after a denial, revocation, or related hearing decision, to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with flexibility for classified or unclassified formats.
Key Definitions
Defines passport to include passport cards and clarifies that ‘material support’ encompasses a broad set of goods, services, or financial resources, while excluding medical or religious materials.
Constitutional Safeguards
The section is not to be read to abridge First Amendment rights and does not limit other authorities to revoke a passport.
Severability
If any provision is held unconstitutional, the remainder of the act remains in effect and other provisions apply to other persons or circumstances.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State Department and its passport-issuance staff gain clear, enforceable authority to restrict travel for certain risk profiles.
- Counterterrorism and national-security agencies benefit from a formalized tool to curb travel for individuals tied to FTOs or who provide material support.
- Congressional oversight and the committees of jurisdiction receive a structured reporting mechanism to monitor passport-denial and revocation decisions.
- The broader public safety community may see reduced risk from transit and international movement by individuals implicated in terrorism-related activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals denied passport issuance or subject to revocation face travel disruption and potential legal challenges.
- State Department resources will be stretched by the need to apply new criteria, manage hearings, and coordinate reporting.
- Judicial and administrative resources will be used for hearings and potential restoration proceedings.
- Businesses and families with international travel plans may bear indirect costs related to delays, travel adjustments, and administrative requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether it is appropriate to authorize and operationalize passport denial and revocation based on terrorism-related accusations or designations, while preserving due process and civil liberties in a way that does not hamper legitimate travel or unduly empower executive action.
The bill’s design hinges on a narrow but powerful set of tools aimed at restricting travel for individuals tied to terrorism. The tension lies in balancing swift, preventive action with due-process safeguards and First Amendment considerations, particularly around the definition of “material support” and the potential for misdesignation.
The reporting requirement introduces an oversight layer but may raise concerns about operational secrecy and the handling of classified information. The humanitarian waiver and return-travel exceptions are meant to prevent undue hardship but could complicate consistent application.
Overall, implementation will depend on how tightly the definitions are drawn and how the review procedures function in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.