WASHINGTON — The House on Monday approved legislation that would bar anyone tied to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel from immigrating to the United States, sending the measure to the Senate for consideration.
The Republican-led bill passed by voice vote, a procedure that records no roll call and is commonly used for noncontroversial measures. Supporters say the change would close perceived gaps in immigration law related to terrorism and strengthen tools available to immigration and national security officials.
The move touches on questions of border integrity, enforcement capacity and how the United States treats people linked to internationally designated terrorist attacks. In our Congress Coverage, lawmakers framed the legislation as a way to make explicit who is inadmissible under U.S. immigration law.
Background
The bill, titled the No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act of 2025, was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and would amend immigration statutes to specify that people tied to the Oct. 7 attacks are inadmissible to the United States, according to a Fox News report.
Companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev. House leaders advanced the measure by voice vote Monday afternoon, and it now awaits action in the upper chamber.
- Passed House: voice vote.
- Next step: consideration by the Senate.
- Companion sponsors: Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Sen. Jacky Rosen.
What the bill would do
Supporters say the legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deem inadmissible any alien who “carried out, participated in, planned, financed, afforded material support to, or otherwise facilitated” attacks against Israel that began Oct. 7, 2023. Supporters also say the measure would explicitly add Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to the statutory references that govern immigration-related terrorist bars.
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are already designated by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations, a designation that has immigration consequences. The bill would make the connection to the Oct. 7 attacks explicit in immigration law and require federal agencies to apply the new language in visa adjudications, refugee and asylum reviews, and other immigration procedures.
Proponents contend the change removes ambiguity about whether people tied to a specific, high-profile terror attack fall under existing inadmissibility grounds. They say clarifying statutory language could help consular officers, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border Protection in screening and removal proceedings.
Officials, records and legal context
Rep. McClintock said the bill places those tied to the Oct. 7 attacks in the same category as other groups already referenced in immigration law and urged the Senate to take it up this session. Earlier this year, authorities arrested a Gazan native residing in Louisiana, Mahmoud Amin Ya’qub Al-Muhtadi, on charges tied to alleged involvement in the Oct. 7 attacks, according to court records cited in reporting.
The bill’s language centers on conduct such as planning, financing or providing material support. “Material support” is a concept that appears in federal criminal law and has been the subject of litigation over how broadly it can be applied. Courts have previously upheld restrictions on providing material support to designated terrorist organizations while recognizing some legal limits on overbroad applications.
Because immigration inadmissibility is civil rather than criminal, expanding the categories of inadmissible conduct could change how administrative adjudicators handle evidence and how frequently cases move toward removal or visa refusals.
Reactions and next steps
Supporters described the bill as a targeted national security and immigration enforcement measure. The voice vote suggested broad support in the House leadership, though voice votes do not produce a roll-call tally that shows how individual members voted.
Opponents or civil liberties advocates who have criticized similar proposals in the past warn that broadly defined bars can sweep in people who have tenuous or indirect connections to wrongdoing, creating legal and humanitarian concerns for asylum seekers and others seeking refuge. Legal advocates also note that administrative screening and investigative resources would need to expand to review additional cases under a broader inadmissibility standard.
How quickly the Senate moves will depend on leadership priorities and competing legislative demands. If enacted, the change would require federal agencies to update guidance, train adjudicators and potentially increase vetting steps that could carry administrative costs.
Analysis
The House action underscores how national security incidents can prompt Congress to change immigration statutes to reflect evolving threats. By amending the statutory definition of inadmissible aliens and explicitly tying groups and conduct to a high-profile terror attack, lawmakers aim to give immigration and security officials clearer authority to deny entry to people linked to that violence.
But clarity comes with tradeoffs. Expanding inadmissibility criteria increases the caseload for immigration officials and could produce more litigation over how “participation” or “material support” is proved in administrative settings. Courts may be asked to reconcile statutory language with constitutional and statutory protections, and federal agencies could face new resource and training demands.
For Congress, the measure shifts the debate to the Senate, where lawmakers will balance national security claims against concerns about due process, humanitarian obligations and the practical limits of enforcement. The outcome will shape how immigration law and counterterrorism enforcement intersect in future administrations and how narrowly or broadly the United States interprets ties to foreign violence when deciding who may enter or remain in the country.
