Having a history of being in government or working in government is not by itself a sign of good or of bad character. The conduct/role of the individuals with such affiliation may be that sign.

Personally, I couldn’t in good conscience work in a governmental capacity that chooses to deny free US citizens the right to acquire/retain US passports the same as everyone else but allows them to still roam free in America like the rest of us.

Unless and until all my passports are denied and/or revoked, I would say at least more freely still than acquaintances still in the USG.

This kind of expected outcome — including that of revocation being more challenging for the government — is why I was previously suggesting to rush in to apply for a new or renewal US passport.

Keep in mind that even before the FAST Act, US passports could be denied to some people who hold tax debts. It’s just that FAST will have substantially expanded the pool of US citizens who will be denied a US passport.

The IRS spokesperson said “potential revocation”. It’s only potential because it can’t happen unless and until State can do so — and State will only be able to do so under limited circumstances even for those who are already subject to not being able to get a new/renewal passport application fulfilled due to the law that led to passport denial for US citizens with such tax problems.

This could change, and repeatedly at that, but it’s a question of how and how soon.

FAST isn’t generating as much money for the UST from US passport denial as was used an excuse to put it in FAST. Can’t say I’m surprised.

State can’t comply with UST/IRS-wishful desires unless State follows the body of laws and regulations applicable to it when considering how and under what conditions to revoke already-issued US passports.

Here’s the background to why the IRS wants State to do revocations more broadly for SDTDs:

A substantial proportion of people who are subject to passport denial due to SDTD under the FAST Act have entered into agreements/relationships/understandings with the IRS after getting the initial notice of certification and/or after being hit by a new/renewal passport application denial. They then quickly get the passport application fulfilled and end up having the new passport in hand with a validity of up to ten years. Guess what happens soon thereafter to many such individuals with a rather new US passport? They often end up getting another FAST Act-related SDTD notice of certification for not delivering as the IRS wanted, but since they already have a passport that can’t so easily be revoked. Given these IRS/UST certifications are mostly hitting people eligible for ten year US passports, the IRS doesn’t want to be stuck having lost the utility of the FAST Act-related threats for as long as nearly 9-10 years when it comes to collections. Keep in mind that the statute of limitations for some of these claimed tax debts against FAST Act-targets won’t be tolled and would most likely become unenforceable by the IRS by the time (or a bit after) the passport expires.

The UST/IRS wants State to revoke issued US passports for not only those who get re-certified with SDTDs but also revoked for those whom the IRS believe to have international income and/or assets — however modest — that the UST/IRS believes should be made available to it as a factor in reconsidering SDTD-related certification. But a large proportion of the second targets of this next wave of effort by the IRS are dual-citizens and so can still use their non-US passports to travel internationally while also still being able to legally enter and exit the US too. All of this just is part of the picture of how the passport-related provisions of the FAST Act have failed to collect as much money as its proponents believed would happen.