Rubio’s Visa Policy Does Not Bar Left-Wing Americans From Leaving the Country. Passports Are Another Question — Is America Better Yet?

By Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist
Is America Better Yet?

For an American citizen, losing the ability to use a passport can have a serious practical consequence: in most circumstances, federal law requires a valid U.S. passport to enter or leave the United States. There are limited exceptions.

But that is not what Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on July 16.

Rubio announced a new visa restriction policy aimed at foreign nationals whom the State Department says finance, recruit, incite, or otherwise enable what the administration describes as far-left terrorist or aligned groups. The department says the restrictions are being imposed under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

That policy is real.

The claim that it automatically means Americans associated with left-wing or “far-left” organizations can no longer leave the United States is not supported by the policy itself.

A visa determines whether a foreign national may enter the United States. A U.S. passport is governed by a separate body of law.

And that separate passport authority deserves scrutiny.

The government already has power to deny or revoke passports

Federal law and State Department regulations provide several circumstances in which a passport can be denied, restricted, limited, or revoked.

Those include certain outstanding felony warrants, extradition matters, specified criminal convictions, some tax debts, and other grounds established by law or regulation.

One provision is especially relevant to this investigation.

Under 22 C.F.R. § 51.60(c)(4), the State Department may refuse to issue a passport when the Secretary of State determines that an applicant's activities abroad are causing, or are likely to cause, serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.

Under 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(1), the department may revoke or limit an existing passport when its bearer could be denied one under § 51.60 or another applicable provision.

Those authorities existed before Rubio's July announcement.

Their existence does not establish that the administration is now using them against Americans because of political affiliation.

Congress placed an important limit on passport power

There is also a direct statutory safeguard.

Under 22 U.S.C. § 2721, a passport cannot be denied, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership that would be protected by the First Amendment if it occurred within the United States.

That protection matters.

Lawful political belief, protest, journalism, advocacy, association, or membership cannot simply be converted into a passport-disqualification rule because an administration objects to the viewpoint involved.

That does not mean every activity described as political is constitutionally protected. Criminal conduct, unlawful material support, true threats, violence, money laundering, and other conduct outside First Amendment protection present different legal questions.

The distinction is between protected political activity and independently established grounds for government action.

Why NSPM-7 raises a legitimate question

The connection becomes more complicated because of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, issued September 25, 2025.

NSPM-7, formally titled Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, was directed to the Secretary of State as well as the Treasury secretary, attorney general, and homeland security secretary.

The memorandum orders Joint Terrorism Task Forces to investigate specified potential federal crimes associated with political violence and financing.

It also specifically refers to nongovernmental organizations and American citizens residing abroad or with close foreign connections when those persons or organizations are alleged to be involved in Foreign Agents Registration Act violations or money laundering connected to entities supporting or encouraging domestic terrorism.

NSPM-7 then instructs the task forces to coordinate with federal departments and agencies to determine whether those agencies can use their existing authorities to support investigations and prosecutions.

That is significant because the State Department already possesses passport authorities.

But there is an equally important fact:

NSPM-7 does not mention passports.

It does not direct the State Department to revoke passports.

It does not establish a rule preventing left-wing Americans from traveling internationally.

And it does not say that political affiliation, standing alone, is sufficient for passport action.

The fact that the State Department is one of the agencies addressed by NSPM-7 makes the intersection worth investigating. It does not prove that the department has connected NSPM-7 to its passport powers.

What the evidence establishes

Verified: Rubio announced a July 16, 2026 visa restriction policy concerning foreign nationals associated with what the administration describes as far-left terrorist and aligned groups.

Verified: The July policy does not itself create a prohibition on international travel by U.S. citizens.

Verified: The State Department already has authority under existing regulations to deny, limit, or revoke passports in specified circumstances.

Verified: One of those grounds, § 51.60(c)(4), concerns activities abroad that the Secretary determines are causing or likely to cause serious damage to U.S. national security or foreign policy.

Verified: Federal law prohibits passport action based on speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership that would receive First Amendment protection if undertaken within the United States.

Verified: NSPM-7 expressly includes the Secretary of State among its recipients, discusses certain investigations involving American citizens abroad or with close foreign connections, and tells federal task forces to determine whether agencies can apply existing authorities.

Verified: NSPM-7 does not mention passport denial or revocation.

Supported inference: Because NSPM-7 calls for agencies to examine their existing authorities, and because the State Department possesses passport authority, it is reasonable to ask whether those powers have been considered in cases arising from the initiative.

That is a question for records and official answers, not a conclusion.

What remains unknown

Is America Better Yet? has located no public directive establishing that the State Department is using its passport powers against U.S. citizens as part of the administration's campaign against alleged far-left terrorism.

That does not establish that no internal guidance or referrals exist.

Several questions remain unanswered:

• Has the State Department issued nonpublic guidance connecting NSPM-7 to passport denial, limitation, or revocation?
• Has any U.S. citizen been referred to the State Department for passport action under an investigation associated with NSPM-7?
• Has § 51.60(c)(4) been considered or invoked in such a case?
• Has any American's passport actually been denied, restricted, or revoked because of this initiative?
• What evidentiary standard would the department require before taking such action?

IABY has asked the State Department for answers and is awaiting its response.

A passport action would come with procedures

Passport action under these regulations is not necessarily invisible to the person affected.

State Department rules require written notice when a passport application is denied or a passport is revoked. The notice must provide the specific reasons and, when applicable, explain available review procedures.

For passport denials or revocations based on § 51.60(c) or § 51.62(a)(1), the affected person may request a hearing. The request generally must reach the department within 60 days after the person receives notice.

Those procedures could also produce records that help determine whether the authority is being used in connection with the current initiative.

Why the distinction matters

The government's July visa policy and its passport authority should not be blended into one claim.

They are separate.

The July 16 policy concerns foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States.

Passport law concerns the government's authority over travel documents issued to U.S. citizens and nationals.

And federal law places an explicit barrier between passport restrictions and protected political speech or association.

So the evidence currently supports neither extreme.

There is no public evidence establishing a blanket government policy preventing left-wing Americans from leaving the country.

But neither should the existence of separate passport authority be ignored when a presidential national security memorandum directed in part to the Secretary of State tells agencies to consider using their existing powers.

The correct question is narrower and more consequential:

Has the administration instructed, encouraged, or asked the State Department to use existing passport authorities against U.S. citizens investigated under its campaign against alleged far-left terrorism?

If so, the next questions are just as important:

Who can be targeted, what evidence is required, what conduct triggers action, and what safeguards prevent constitutionally protected speech and political association from becoming the basis for restricting an American's ability to travel?

Those questions require evidence.

Questions sent to the State Department

1. Has the Department issued any directive, memorandum, legal guidance, policy, or instruction since January 20, 2025 concerning the use of 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.60 through 51.65 against U.S. citizens investigated in connection with groups described by the administration as “far-left,” “Antifa,” domestic terrorists, or aligned organizations?
2. Has any U.S. citizen's passport been denied, limited, or revoked as part of such an initiative?
3. Has the Department received referrals concerning U.S. citizens investigated under NSPM-7 for possible passport action?
4. Has the Department considered or interpreted 22 C.F.R. § 51.60(c)(4) in connection with NSPM-7 or the July 16, 2026 visa restriction policy?
5. What safeguards does the Department use to ensure passport actions are not based on speech, belief, association, affiliation, membership, journalism, protest, or other conduct protected by 22 U.S.C. § 2721 and the First Amendment?
6. Does the Department maintain statistics showing the number of passport denials, limitations, or revocations under § 51.60(c)(4), by year and stated legal basis?

Reporting note

The Trump administration uses terms including “far-left terrorism,” “radical left,” “Antifa,” and “domestic terrorism” in the government documents examined for this report. Those are government characterizations where attributed here.

A government label is not, by itself, proof that a person or organization committed a crime or engaged in terrorism.

IABY distinguishes those official characterizations from independently established conduct.

The State Department has been asked for additional information. If it responds, or if records, court proceedings, administrative decisions, or documented passport cases provide new evidence, this article will be updated.

Sources

• U.S. Department of State, Secretary Marco Rubio, Visa Restriction Policy Targeting Far-Left Terrorist and Other Aligned Groups, July 16, 2026.
• U.S. Department of State, Section 212(a)(3)(C) Visa Restrictions.
• U.S. Department of State, Foreign Press Center, Results from the Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism, July 20, 2026.
• The White House, National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, September 25, 2025.
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 22 C.F.R. § 51.60, Denial and restriction of passports.
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 22 C.F.R. § 51.62, Revocation or limitation of passports.
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.65 and 51.70, notice and administrative-review procedures.
• U.S. Code, 22 U.S.C. § 2721, Impermissible basis for denial of passports.
• U.S. Code and Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 8 U.S.C. § 1185 and 22 C.F.R. Part 53, passport requirements for U.S. citizens entering or departing the United States and applicable exceptions.

© 2026 Is America Better Yet? All rights reserved.

I write for you,

— Roberto

isamericabetteryet.org