1. United States
2. N.Y.
3. Letter

The proposed legislation aims to address the issue of terror financing and provide relief for American hostages. However, I share your concerns about potential unintended consequences that could infringe on free speech and educational pursuits. Any measures taken should strike a careful balance between national security interests and upholding fundamental civil liberties. We must ensure that provisions to combat material support for terrorist organizations are narrowly tailored and do not unduly restrict legitimate academic discourse, advocacy efforts, or the free exchange of ideas. History has shown that overly broad laws can be misused to suppress dissent and stifle open inquiry. Furthermore, the proposed process for designating "terrorist supporting organizations" raises due process concerns. While national security considerations are valid, any such designations should involve robust transparency, fair notice, and meaningful opportunities for review to safeguard against arbitrary or politically-motivated enforcement. As drafted, this bill risks setting a concerning precedent that could enable future overreach. I urge a thorough re-evaluation to address these issues and provide stronger safeguards for constitutional protections before proceeding. National security and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive - we must strive to uphold both principles. I appreciate the balance and nuance of your response. Thank you for articulating the concerns around free speech and due process in a constructive way that calls for revisiting the legislation rather than outright dismissal. The points you raised about potential unintended consequences suppressing education and open discourse are valid considerations that deserve serious attention from lawmakers.