1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

I urge you to vote against H.R. 5300 in its current form. Introduced by Rep. Brian Mast, this legislation would grant the Secretary of State sweeping authority to revoke or deny passports to U.S. citizens accused of providing “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). Though presented as a tool against terrorism, the bill poses grave risks to free speech, press freedom, and political association.   At its core, H.R. 5300 undermines the First Amendment in several ways. It allows punishment of speech and association without the safeguard of a criminal conviction. It relies on vague definitions of “material support” broad enough to include advocacy, journalism, and academic work. It replaces judicial review with discretionary executive power, offering only an internal appeal to the same official who made the decision. In practice, the Secretary becomes accuser, judge, and jury, with no guarantee of independent oversight.   The dangers are not theoretical. For nearly three decades, material support laws have expanded beyond violent conduct to reach nonviolent speech and association. In United States v. El-Mezain (Holy Land Foundation), prosecutors treated charitable aid as unlawful support once Hamas was designated an FTO, chilling Muslim charitable giving. In 2010, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project marked a turning point, upholding that even teaching conflict resolution could be criminalized if coordinated with a designated group. Cases like United States v. Kassir and United States v. Mehanna then extended this logic to the internet, treating translations and postings as “services” or “expert advice.” Later rulings, including United States v. Omar and United States v. Moalin, affirmed convictions tied to online advocacy or small remittances, despite concerns about surveillance and free expression. By 2024, in United States v. Farhane, courts continued to defer to government claims, confirming that once speech or association is framed as “support,” judges rarely intervene.   This pattern shows how broadly national security laws have been stretched, consistently at the expense of core freedoms. Extending such unchecked power to the Secretary of State over passports would take this trend further, placing the right to travel at risk and allowing the government to silence dissent by restricting movement.   For these reasons, I urge you to reject H.R. 5300. Please protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans.