Treason is one of the worst crimes one can commit against one's country. It is taking the side of an enemy, generally during an armed conflict. In today's political landscape, if an American citizen, say, traveled to Iran and led a shouting chant of "Down with USA" at a rally in Tehran, one could argue that he has committed an act of treason.
As a civilized nation, how should we deal with traitors?
I ask that, not as hyperbole; I mean someone accused of conduct that at least raises the question of treason, as defined by the Constitution and in 18 USC Ch. 115:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
So, how do we deal with this? As in, how to deal with the scenario mentioned above? It's a fair question, because it actually happened. Republican Representative Randy Fine (FL-06) called it exactly that - treason - and called for the arrest of pro-Iran "influencer" Jackson Hinkle, who did just what I described. Whether Hinkle's conduct could actually satisfy the Constitution's notoriously narrow definition of treason is another question.
This is treason.
— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) July 7, 2026
Arrest this scumbag the second he lands back in America. https://t.co/4VPHTRdehi
Arresting him on his return to the United States, yes, might be an option. It would also be the first act in what would almost certainly be a prolonged legal battle, with no certain outcome - and the next Democrat president would more than likely just pardon him anyway.
But there's another option. The State Department has authority in some circumstances to revoke Hinkle's passport. If he's that fond of Iran, fine, let him rot there.
Now, it's not quite as simple as it sounds, but it can be done, and it has been done. One of the more well-known examples involves the State Department revoking the passport of whistleblower Edward Snowden, stranding him in Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport for a little over a month, until Russia granted him asylum. Passports can be revoked by the State Department under 22 CFR § 51.62 for several reasons, including, as would seem to apply in the case of Jackson Hinkle, for national security or foreign policy reasons.
There is a Supreme Court decision from 1981, Haig v. Agee, that seems to allow this. In that case:
Respondent, an American citizen and a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, announced a campaign "to expose CIA officers and agents and to take the measures necessary to drive them out of the countries where they are operating." He then engaged in activities abroad that have resulted in identifications of alleged undercover CIA agents and intelligence sources in foreign countries. Because of these activities the Secretary of State revoked respondent's passport, explaining that the revocation was based on a regulation authorizing revocation of a passport where the Secretary determines that an American citizen's activities abroad "are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States."
The Supreme Court upheld the Secretary of State's authority to revoke a passport when an American citizen's activities abroad "are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States." Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Executive's foreign affairs and national security interests outweighed Agee's asserted right to unrestricted international travel.
OK, that's a lot of legalese that amounts to "Yes, the State Department can yank Hinkle's passport, potentially leaving him stranded in Iran - unless it issues limited documentation for his return." The State Department can also restrict his passport, which would allow him to return to the United States, presumably to face the music, or to simply prevent him from any further trouble-making abroad. Now, this isn't something that's done often, and the majority of passport revocations - the State Department doesn't publish the numbers - appear to be due to tax debt. "Seriously delinquent" tax debt can result in revocation, but those cases typically are undertaken, not to prevent an American citizen from returning, but to prevent them from fleeing.
Of the options, the most satisfying one would be an outright revocation. Let him remain in Iran.
Read More: Report: New USA-Iran Talks Set for July 11 in Pakistan
Watch: Khamenei Funeral Becomes Platform for Anti-Trump Hate, Death Threats
In the case of the detestable dirtbag and arguable traitor Jackson Hinkle, such a revocation would be, effectively, an exile.
Now, here's the thing: The Iranians would doubtless try to make some kind of propaganda victory out of this, were the State Department to actually revoke Hinkle's passport. They would likely try to cast themselves as the great humanitarians, granting asylum, as they surely would, to an American dissident. Now, the effective range of such an attempt could be measured in microns. The history of the Islamic Republic is too well known, its support for terror groups far and wide, and the regime's brutal repression of its own people is too well documented. Nobody with enough brains to pound sand would buy such an attempt, but then, if you peruse some video of some of the pro-Iran protests right here in the United States, it would appear that we have a surfeit of people who lack enough brains to do just that.
Even so, this may be the best option for the United States. If Jackson Hinkle hates his home country so much that he will travel to an enemy nation - one with which the United States has recently been engaged in military hostilities - fine. Revoke his passport. Let him rot there.
