Measures Against Marxism’s Dangerous Adherents and Noxious Islamists Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill drastically expands ideological exclusions in U.S. immigration law, creating new and retroactive grounds for denying entry, deporting non-citizens, and revoking citizenship based on specific political and religious beliefs, while removing judicial oversight.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to broaden the grounds for inadmissibility, deportability, and denaturalization for aliens and naturalized citizens. It specifically targets individuals who are or were members of, affiliated with, or advocate for socialist, communist, Chinese communist, Marxist, or Islamic fundamentalist doctrines or associated parties/organizations. The bill also removes judicial review for determinations made under these new provisions and provides extensive, broad definitions for the targeted ideologies and parties.
Proponents argue
Proponents would argue that the bill is a critical measure to protect national security and preserve American democratic values by preventing individuals associated with ideologies deemed hostile to the United States from entering or remaining in the country. They would assert that these doctrines, as defined, pose fundamental threats to the U.S. system of government and society, and that the nation has a right to exclude and remove those who adhere to them. The removal of judicial review would be framed as necessary to streamline enforcement and prevent endless litigation.
Opponents contend
Opponents would contend that this bill constitutes an unconstitutional ideological litmus test, infringing upon fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, association, and due process for both aliens and naturalized citizens. They would argue that the broad and vague definitions of prohibited ideologies could lead to arbitrary enforcement, target individuals based on past beliefs or academic inquiry rather than actions, and create a chilling effect on political and religious expression. The removal of judicial review would be seen as a dangerous erosion of the rule of law and a severe curtailment of individual liberties.
The bill is relatively short but contains complex legal amendments and broad, philosophical definitions that require careful reading and consideration to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2(a)
Expanded Grounds for Inadmissibility
This section amends existing immigration law to make aliens ineligible for admission to the United States if they are or were members of, affiliated with, or advocate for Chinese communist, communist, socialist, Islamic fundamentalist, or any other totalitarian parties or organizations. It reduces the age exception for advocacy from 16 to 14 and eliminates previous exceptions for involuntary membership or membership for obtaining basic necessities. Crucially, it states that determinations made under these provisions are final and cannot be reviewed by any court.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that this provision is essential to safeguard national security and prevent individuals whose ideologies are fundamentally incompatible with American democratic principles from entering the country. They would assert that the U.S. has a sovereign right to control who enters its borders based on ideological alignment.
Critics contend
Critics would contend that this provision creates an overly broad ideological test, potentially violating freedom of thought and association. They would argue it could lead to arbitrary denials based on past or minor affiliations, or even academic interest, and that the removal of judicial review undermines due process.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between national security concerns and fundamental individual liberties, particularly freedom of speech and association, as well as the right to judicial review.
Section 2(b)
Expanded Grounds for Deportability
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make any alien deportable if they have engaged, are engaged, or at any time after admission engage in advocacy for, or writing/distributing/possessing materials advocating for, communism, Chinese communism, socialism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism. It also makes deportable any alien who has been, is, or becomes a member of or affiliated with a Chinese communist party, communist party, socialist party, Islamic fundamentalist party, or an organization advocating these ideologies. Similar to inadmissibility, determinations under this section are final and not subject to judicial review.
Section 2(c)
Expanded Grounds for Denaturalization and Ineligibility for Naturalization
This section significantly amends the criteria for naturalization, making individuals ineligible if they are or were members of, affiliated with, or advocate for socialist, communist, Chinese communist, Islamic fundamentalist, or any other totalitarian parties or organizations. It removes the five-year limitation for revoking naturalization and eliminates the 'in the absence of countervailing evidence' clause, making denaturalization easier and potentially perpetual. The age exception for advocacy is reduced from 16 to 14, and exceptions for involuntary membership or for obtaining essentials are removed. All determinations under this section are final and not subject to judicial review.
Section 2(e)
Broad Definitions of Prohibited Ideologies and Parties
This section adds extensive and detailed definitions for 'socialism,' 'communism,' 'Chinese communism,' 'Marxism,' and 'Islamic fundamentalism,' as well as specific lists of associated 'communist party,' 'socialist party,' 'Chinese communist party,' and 'Islamic fundamentalist party' organizations. These definitions are broad, encompassing advocacy for economic restructuring, state control, suppression of opposition, and specific historical figures. For example, 'Islamic fundamentalism' includes advocating Sharia law, militant jihad, or the destruction of other religious communities or Western civilization.
The bill explicitly states that any determination made under the new provisions for inadmissibility, deportability, and naturalization ineligibility 'shall be final and shall not be subject to review by any court.'
Section 2(a)(5)(iv), Section 2(b)(ii), Section 2(c)(6)
Why it matters:While legally explicit, the full implications of removing judicial review might be missed by a reader not accustomed to legislative drafting. This is a highly consequential procedural change that significantly limits legal recourse.
Case for: Proponents might argue that removing judicial review streamlines enforcement, prevents endless litigation, and ensures that national security decisions are not unduly delayed or overturned by courts.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this is a severe curtailment of due process, removing a critical check on potential government overreach, arbitrary decision-making, and politically motivated enforcement in matters of immigration status and citizenship.
Estimated impact: This provision drastically reduces avenues for appeal and legal challenge for individuals targeted by the bill, making administrative decisions effectively final and unchallengeable in federal courts.
The bill consistently amends existing statutory language to broaden its retroactive application and remove existing safeguards. Specifically, it changes 'is' to 'is or was' to include past actions/affiliations, removes the 'involuntary' membership exception, removes the exception for membership 'by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living,' and removes the five-year limit for denaturalization.
Section 2(a)(2)(B), 2(a)(3)(B), 2(c)(4), 2(d)
Why it matters:These are technical legislative changes, but their substantive impact is profound. They broaden the scope and retroactive application of the prohibitions, making them much more stringent and encompassing a wider range of past circumstances.
Case for: Proponents would argue that past affiliations or advocacy, even if involuntary or for survival, still indicate an ideological alignment incompatible with U.S. interests. They would assert that citizenship should not be immune from revocation if fundamental ideological incompatibilities are discovered at any time.
Case against: Opponents would argue that these changes are draconian, punishing individuals for past circumstances beyond their control or for beliefs held long ago. They contend these provisions undermine the stability of naturalization by creating a perpetual threat of denaturalization and could lead to unjust outcomes for those who fled totalitarian regimes.
Estimated impact: These changes vastly expand the pool of individuals who could be targeted for inadmissibility, deportation, or denaturalization, including those whose past actions were not voluntary or were necessary for survival, and naturalized citizens regardless of how long they have held citizenship.