Rep. Brian Mast has pulled Section 226 of H.R. 5300 — the provision United Voices called the “Passport Killer” — from consideration before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The measure would have given Secretary of State Marco Rubio sweeping, unilateral authority to revoke U.S. passports based on vague “material support” allegations, with no conviction required and no meaningful judicial oversight.

See: GOP lawmaker pulls measure to allow Marco Rubio to revoke US passports — The Guardian

It is a win. And it is worth understanding exactly how it happened: organized advocacy, public pressure, formal legal analysis delivered directly to lawmakers, and principled resistance from people who refused to let a dangerous provision slide through committee on the strength of its misleading name. United Voices had sent a formal letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee documenting the constitutional problems with Section 226 and calling for its rejection. The pressure worked.

“Section 226 was a direct attack on Americans’ constitutional rights, threatening to strip citizens of their freedom to travel and to speak freely about human rights issues abroad,” United Voices said. “Today, we welcome the withdrawal of this provision. It shows that organized advocacy, public pressure, and principled lawmakers can hold the government accountable and prevent abuses of power.”

The withdrawal of Section 226 is part of a broader pattern of accountability victories this year. The Senate blocked a bill that would have imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court — undermining accountability for war crimes at the precise moment the ICC had issued a warrant for Netanyahu. The House defeated the so-called “NGO Killer Bill,” which would have weaponized the tax code against civil rights and advocacy organizations critical of Israeli government policy.

Each of these defeats matters. Each represents a line that was not crossed — a power that was not handed to an administration that has already demonstrated it will use every available tool to silence political dissent, punish advocacy, and shield Israel from accountability.

But Mast pulled the provision, not abandoned it. The impulse behind Section 226 — to use the machinery of government to make dissent costly and mobility conditional — has not disappeared. It will return in another bill, another provision, another cleverly titled clause buried in a reauthorization. United Voices is naming this pattern clearly: legislation that targets Americans for their political views about Israel’s conduct is not national security policy. It is censorship with a passport stamp. And the vigilance that stopped it this time must continue.