Thought police bill introduced to revoke US passport for criticism of Israel
64 comments
·September 15, 2025rich_sasha
mattnewton
It’s been used before to punish political speech, especially during the Mcarthy era against “un american” speech like support for labor rights where the government couldn’t win in court. I thought we had all agreed that was bad and moved passed it, but, I guess not.
(Notably it was used against WEB Du Boise and then when it was lifted and he traveled to Ghana, the US state department refused to renew his passport stranding him there until he became a Ghanaian citizen.)
slt2021
Most importantly no due process, no court judgement required. Just the discretion of Marco Rubio
apparent
Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support". [1] It appears not to include speech (though "training" could fall into this camp), and there is also a First Amendment carveout just below the definition.
I wonder if this would have legs in the current Congress. Probably depends on how popular the other parts of the bill are (I have no idea what it's about, but I saw there's lots of other stuff in there).
1: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...
Miner49er
No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c...
kelthuzad
>No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c...
Your claim that "material support included speech in the past" is misleading because it misses the crucial distinction between public discourse and direct assistance. The First Amendment continues to fully protect public advocacy. You can write, speak, and argue publicly in favor of any cause. What the Supreme Court prohibited was not the expression of an idea, but the action of providing a professional service directly to a designated organization, such as giving "expert advice" or "training".
In short, the law distinguishes between expressing an independent opinion (which is legal) and using your speech as an expert tool to help a group operate (which is not).
Miner49er
My point is OP is wrong that it doesn't include speech. It includes some speech.
slt2021
Who is the judge? Looks like there is no due process, just the discretion of Marco Rubio is enough to revoke passport/visa
ceejayoz
> Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support"…
That'll mysteriously get two wildly different in-practice definitions.
ciconia
This is one of many signs that manufacturing of consent doesn't work anymore. In the absence of such acquiescence from the people, western governments are resorting more and more to active and violent repression of voices outside the allowed "mainstream consensus".
First they did it to foreign nationals, now they're turning the same weapons against their own citizens.
apparent
I've never heard of this outlet before. Does anyone know about them (who owns them, if they have typical journalistic standards, etc.)? I typically check these things when I come across a news site that I was not previously aware of, especially when the content relates to contentious topics.
john-h-k
> The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US
This sentence does not appear to be backed up by the article it is linking to, and the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet.
Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
ajsidnbc
> the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet. Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
You see an obviously ludicrous bill, and instead of asking “How did this bill even get here in the first place?” you instead question whether or not the source is (I’m assuming) anti semitic?
I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, because otherwise that’s a very underhanded way to run defense for a genocidal ideology.
That this law was even proposed indicates there’s some very anti-American forces running our government.
apparent
When someone wonders about the the journalistic bona fides of an outlet, it is often because they want to know if the information being presented is accurate and balanced.
For example, do they mention that the bill has a carveout for First Amendment protected speech? I didn't see that mentioned, but it's right there in the bill, below the definition of "material support" (which they also don't cite).
These definitions may be applied in ways that are not fair by the government, but any journalistic outlet worth its salt would include them in their writeup. It seems that this article is more meant to raise alarm and paint the other side as extremists, rather than inform the readership about what has actually been proposed (with all its warts).
john-h-k
See the last line of my comment.
> Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
All i was doing was saying specific wording used in the article causes me to update slightly against the site being unbiased and neutral. There is no grand conspiracy by me here. There is no comment nor opinion on Israel/Palestine within the comment.
_DeadFred_
The top comment on HN discussions often devolve into various other discussions. Funny that is never 'underhanded' discussion, but outside of the pale when it comes to this topic. You can't have a good faith HN discussion on this topic.
Normally on HN people refute arguments, not resort to just 'bad faith'.
TimorousBestie
The article it cites says this (emphasis added):
> For much of its history, the ADL has operated in the United States as if it were a hostile intelligence organization—which, in essence, it was. The organization’s spymaster was Irwin Suall, who from the 1960s to 1997 ran his nationwide network of agents and informants from the ADL’s New York City headquarters. As millions of dollars in donations flowed into the “civil rights” organization, tens of thousands of dollars flowed out to Suall’s clandestine operatives in the field, actively engaged in violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans. Among his agents was Roy Bullock, a beefy San Franciscan with the codename “Cal” who posed as a small-time art dealer in the Castro District and spied undercover in the US for the ADL. To hide the ADL’s involvement, Bullock’s payments were laundered through a Beverly Hills attorney who, Bullock would later tell authorities, never missed a payment in more than three decades. Bullock said he would submit his reports to the ADL’s executive director in San Francisco, Richard Hirschhaut, now the regional director of the American Jewish Committee for Los Angeles.
This supports the stated claim. You can dispute the facts in this citation, of course (I don’t take them as the gospel truth myself), but The Cradle didn’t cite it incorrectly.
john-h-k
Acting like a hostile intelligence agency != being a front for Israeli intelligence
Belopolye
I've followed The Cradle for a couple of years. For what it's worth I've been able to corroborate much of what is published against other sources, and I believe it's entirely funded by donations.
Rather biased against NATO and Israel, but I suppose that could be a good or bad thing depending on one's perspective.
ceejayoz
ks2048
At lest The Intercept links to a page for the congressional hearing, but I don't know why they don't say which bill or amendment this is referring to.
this2shallPass
I hadn't heard of them either so I checked online. I usually check Media Bias / Fact Check and AllSides when I encounter a news source with which I'm not familiar.
1. Media Bias / Fact Check:
Funded by / Ownership
The Cradle lacks transparency as it does not disclose who owns it. Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
The Cradle’s content frequently opposes Israeli policies and Western geopolitical stances, particularly focusing on West Asian politics. Articles often critique far-right Israeli politicians and highlight regional issues from a perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives. Articles and headlines often use loaded emotional language in opposition to Israeli policy like this Cracks deepen in Israel as opposition head issues ‘ultimatum’ to Netanyahu. This story is correctly sourced from the Times of Israel and Haaretz.
Editorially, The Cradle consistently frames Israel negatively with stories such as this On Israel and rape. While this article is sourced properly from credible sources, it is entirely one-sided in focusing on Israel. When reporting on the United States, they often report negatively on President Joe Biden like this ‘Biden has the blood of innocent people on his hands’: Former US official.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-cradle-bias-and-credibili...
2. AllSides:
The Cradle Rated Lean Left in January 2024 Independent Review
An independent AllSides reviewer opted to give The Cradle an initial rating of Lean Left.
While it demonstrated a clear opposition to Israel and the West, The Cradle did not appear to weigh in on other topics relevant to right-left U.S. politics. Site searches for "liberal," "conservative," "right-wing," and "left-wing" yielded few results.
Dilettante_
Thanks ChatGPT.
Edit: Parent edited their comment and added their sources.
this2shallPass
Google, but you're welcome.
JumpCrisscross
It looked like AI slop, but if you click through, they’re actually quoting their sources verbatim. (No clue how the source compiles its ratings, however.)
isr
The Cradle is a pretty well respected analysis site, which is often referenced to by other independent journalists. Just as in the late 1930's-40's, most respected, independent journalists would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Nazism, similarly, most respected independent journalists today would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Zionism & Israel.
Case in point, the other comment referencing a headline "Israel & rape" from the Cradle. Well, that's because the Israeli's do have a mass campaign of both torture & rape on Palestinian prisoners/hostages. Which has been confirmed even by former State Dept officials. Not to mention OPEN ADMISSION of this policy, widely, across Israeli media & politics. Down to streaming the rapes live to HQ (one of which was the one that was leaked and went viral), and then openly glorifying the SELF-CONFESSING rapist live on TV.
None of the above is a sensationalising the truth. It's just a strict, verbatim recounting of the truth, as admitted to (in self glorifying terms) by the accused. So it's not a sign of bias. If the plain, unvarnished, completely verified truth feels like bias to anyone, that's not a commentary on the messenger. It's a commentary on the observer.
hollywood_court
The party of small government strikes again!
mnemotronic
Elected representatives frequently introduce bills that have no chance of passing or being considered. This proposed legislation is only to gain points with the electorate: "I introduced a bill to ban/promote XYZ but it was killed by the other side". It's red-cape waving. I would like to come up with a name for this behavior but I'm trying to restrict my use of bad language and negative thinking.
charlescearl
Passport revocation of Paul Robeson https://www.nypl.org/events/exhibitions/galleries/selected-t...
Passport revocation of W.E.B. DuBois https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/when-civil-rights-were...
Passport revocation of William L. Patterson https://depts.washington.edu/moves/CRC_genocide.shtml
comrade1234
Is this revoking citizenship? Or just your passport?
Miner49er
Just passport, so revoking the right to travel to other countries.
slt2021
Why is this flagged?
taylodl
Wow, I just posted on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45251052) that I thought it was sad to live in a third world country where I have to get a passport to get a vaccine. Now the Nazis don't want me to be able to get a passport if I point out Israel appears to be committing war crimes.
Explain to me again how this makes America great?
null
josefritzishere
Well that's concerning.
It's quite a twist of events. While some people, notably immigrants and foreign visitors, are being kept out, some people apparently are (would be) getting kept in.
It's an unusual form of punishment. Not prison or money or community service, or ban from performing actions or duties, like with most crimes. No - you cannot leave the country. I can't think of any other crime for which this is the ultimate punishment (it can be a temporary one, but usually just to make sure people don't run away before a final judgment is made).
And I suppose for this to make any sense, this must apply only to actions that fall short of incitement to violence or terrorism - because for those you go to o prison. It must be things that, applied to not-Israel, are not crimes at all - else the law would be redundant. So I'm picturing something like, someone attensing a peaceful pro-Palestinian rally, and being told they cannot leave the country. Maybe even less, since people are already being prosecuted for that, with existing laws.
Most punishments involve some element of separating the perpetrator from the society. States pay money for prisons to keep criminals away, people are banned from professions where they screwed up. But here people are forced, at the expense of the US budget, to remain in the US among Americans.