This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict visa issuance to aliens who directed, authorized, significantly supported, participated in, or carried out violations of religious freedom. It covers actions taken while the person served as a foreign government official or outside the United States, and ties admissibility to findings of “particularly severe” violations as defined by related law.
The measure also requires the Secretary of State to publicly post the names of inadmissible aliens and the countries where these violations occurred, subject to case-by-case discretion to withhold disclosure for foreign policy reasons and a semi-annual report to Congress explaining such exclusions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new inadmissibility ground to INA 212(a)(2)(G) for aliens who committed or directed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, including acts outside the United States. It requires public posting of inadmissible individuals and their locations, with a secrecy carve-out for policy reasons.
Who It Affects
U.S. consular officers processing visas, foreign government officials, and individuals who may be deemed to have violated religious freedom; the State Department will implement and enforce the posting requirements.
Why It Matters
Sets a tangible standard for excluding violators from travel to the United States and increases transparency about who is blocked, while raising policy and privacy considerations tied to public disclosure and foreign affairs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new ground of inadmissibility for people who have committed, directed, or significantly supported violations of religious freedom. It applies to actions taken while serving as a foreign government official and to conduct outside the United States, using definitions tied to existing protections for religious liberty.
In practical terms, individuals who meet these criteria could be barred from entering the United States under the INA’s visa provisions.
A notable feature is the requirement that the Department of State publicly post the names of aliens deemed inadmissible and the countries where the violations occurred. This transparency regime includes a case-by-case carve-out allowing the Secretary of State to delay or withhold disclosure if releasing information would harm foreign policy.
When disclosures are withheld, the Secretary must provide a semi-annual report to Congress explaining the reasons.The bill introduces these mechanisms with the intent of aligning visa policy with a formal stance on religious freedom violations, while raising questions about definitional scope, due process, privacy, and the potential diplomatic effects of publishing individual identities and locations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new inadmissibility ground under INA 212(a)(2)(G) for violators of religious freedom.
It covers acts both inside and outside the United States, including those who directed, authorized, or significantly supported such violations.
The Secretary of State must publicly post the names of inadmissible aliens and the countries where violations occurred.
There is a discretionary exception to disclosure for foreign policy reasons, with a semi-annual Congressional report explaining the rationale.
Definitions of “particularly severe violations” align with the International Religious Freedom Act definitions used elsewhere in U.S. law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the Banning Perpetrators of Religious Persecution Act of 2026. It is a formal naming device that situates the bill within the immigration framework and signaling its policy objective.
Restriction on Visa Issuance for Violators of Religious Freedom
Section 2 amends INA 212(a)(2)(G) to render inadmissible aliens who, while serving as a foreign government official or outside the United States, directed, authorized, significantly supported, participated in, or carried out particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The provision relies on definitions drawn from the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for what constitutes a violation. The section also introduces a public-notice mechanism by the Secretary of State, which is subject to limited exceptions when disclosure would adversely affect U.S. foreign policy and requires accompanying explanations to Congress.
Public Disclosure and Reporting carve-outs
This section specifies the case-by-case discretion to withhold disclosure on grounds of foreign policy, while mandating semi-annual reporting to Congress detailing the reasons for any exclusions. It codifies the process for publicly listing inadmissible aliens and the locations of the violations, ensuring accountability and a periodic policy review.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration 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
- U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, which would administer visa adjudications and publication requirements.
- Religious freedom and human rights organizations, which gain a clearer normative standard and visibility into who is being blocked.
- Victims and communities affected by religious persecution, who may gain indirect protection if perpetrators face travel restrictions.
- U.S. national security and foreign policy communities, which would have a tool to deter and expose violators.
- Allies and partners prioritizing religious liberty considerations in diplomacy.
Who Bears the Cost
- Visa applicants who are named or indirectly implicated may face longer adjudication timelines or scrutiny.
- Consular officers face added workload and need for consistent interpretation of “particularly severe” violations.
- Foreign governments and individuals data subject to disclosure policies, potentially creating diplomatic friction or privacy concerns.
- Agency resources required to maintain the public postings and congressional reporting.
- Potential chilling effects on legitimate travel or collaboration where associations with individuals accused of violations could arise.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing public accountability for religious freedom violations with the risk of overbroadly labeling individuals or exposing sensitive policy information, potentially affecting diplomacy and privacy.
The bill’s transparency provisions—publicizing names and locations of violations—create clear accountability while raising privacy and foreign policy concerns. The definitional anchors rely on existing statutes (IRF Act) to describe what constitutes violations of religious freedom, but the application to acts abroad and by non-state actors raises questions about scope and due process.
Implementation would require careful standardization across adjudicatory officers to avoid inconsistent outcomes or politicized use of the posting provisions, and the semi-annual reporting requirement adds ongoing oversight costs that must be funded.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.