Quick summary:
• The House passed H.R. 9495, a bill allowing the Treasury Secretary to revoke tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed to support terrorism without substantial evidence or due process.
• The bill passed 219-184, with 15 Democrats joining Republicans in support.
• Critics warn the bill undermines constitutional protections, reversing the burden of proof and stifling dissent.
• Rep. Jamie Raskin called the bill “unconstitutional” and a threat to civil liberties.
• Civil society organizations, including over 150 groups led by the ACLU, oppose the bill, citing its chilling effect on advocacy.
• The bill could disproportionately target pro-Palestinian groups and other nonprofits advocating for controversial causes.
• The legislation’s vague language could empower future administrations, like Trump’s, to silence political opponents.
• Opponents fear misuse of the law could suppress free speech and erode democratic protections.
• The bill now moves to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain amidst growing opposition.
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 9495, a controversial bill critics have dubbed the “nonprofit killer.” The legislation, approved by a vote of 219 to 184, grants the Treasury Secretary the authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits deemed to be “terrorist supporting organizations.” With 15 Democrats joining Republicans in support, the bill now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
Advocacy groups, legal experts, and lawmakers have raised serious concerns about the bill’s potential impact on civil liberties and its sweeping implications for nonprofit organizations across the country. Critics argue the legislation poses a direct threat to free speech and dissenting voices, particularly in light of its expedited passage and lack of due process protections.
H.R. 9495 gives the Treasury Secretary unilateral power to label nonprofits as “terrorist supporting” without requiring substantial evidence or judicial review. Once labeled, an organization’s tax-exempt status can be revoked immediately, dealing what opponents warn could be a financial death blow to most groups. Critics, including constitutional lawyer and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), have described the legislation as both unconstitutional and dangerous.
“A sixth grader would know this is unconstitutional,” Raskin said during the House debate, emphasizing that the bill reverses the burden of proof by forcing nonprofits to prove their innocence after designation.
This shift away from traditional due process norms has alarmed lawmakers across the political spectrum. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) warned of the broader implications for democracy, stating, “Authoritarianism is not born overnight. It creeps in. A tyrant tightens his grip not just by seizing power, but when he demands new powers and those who can stop him willingly cede and bend to his will.”
Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, have expressed deep concerns over the bill’s potential to stifle free speech and advocacy. Critics argue the legislation could be weaponized to target nonprofits based on political motivations, particularly under a future Trump administration.
Advocates for Palestinian rights and Muslim and Arab advocacy organizations are among those most concerned, given a long history of repression and scrutiny. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) described the bill as an expansion of executive power designed to silence dissent, warning it could pave the way for political targeting of advocacy groups that challenge government policies.
Jewish organizations, including a coalition of 55 groups, joined hundreds of civil society organizations in opposing the bill. In a letter to Congress, these groups warned that the legislation’s lack of evidence requirements and its potential for misuse would create a chilling effect on free speech and discourage nonprofits from engaging in critical advocacy work.
While fewer Democrats supported the bill in this week’s vote compared to an earlier attempt to pass it by a two-thirds majority, the 15 Democrats who voted “yes” illustrate a split within the party. Some lawmakers reportedly supported the bill not out of agreement with its provisions but out of fears about national security implications.
However, prominent progressive lawmakers, including Raskin, Doggett, and Jayapal, strongly opposed the legislation, emphasizing the dangers of expanding executive power. Their arguments centered on protecting constitutional rights and preventing the weaponization of federal authority against nonprofits and civil society organizations.
If enacted, H.R. 9495 could have devastating consequences for nonprofit organizations, particularly those involved in political advocacy or supporting marginalized communities. The bill’s broad language and lack of evidentiary standards make it possible for almost any nonprofit to be targeted, critics warn.
Organizations advocating for civil rights, Palestinian solidarity, and even nonprofit newsrooms could face heightened scrutiny under the new rules. Once labeled as “terrorist supporting,” nonprofits would face significant financial challenges, including the loss of critical funding and the stigma of being associated with terrorism.
This threat extends beyond financial repercussions. The mere possibility of designation could deter nonprofits from engaging in advocacy or dissenting activities, undermining their ability to hold governments accountable and advocate for social change.
As the bill moves to the Senate, civil liberties advocates are rallying to prevent its passage. The ACLU and other organizations have emphasized the need for checks and balances to prevent abuse of power, particularly under administrations that have shown a willingness to target political opponents.
“This bill represents a step toward authoritarianism,” Doggett stated on the House floor, urging lawmakers to consider the long-term consequences of granting the executive branch such sweeping authority.
The passage of H.R. 9495 comes at a time of increasing political polarization and rising activism in the United States. Advocates argue that the bill reflects a broader trend of efforts to suppress dissent and limit the ability of civil society organizations to challenge government policies.
With the Senate set to debate the bill, the stakes remain high for nonprofits and advocates of free speech across the country. Civil liberties groups have warned that the legislation could fundamentally alter the relationship between nonprofits and the federal government, with far-reaching implications for democracy and public discourse.
As the debate continues, Raskin’s warning resonates: “Once this scarlet letter and the infamy of being designated a terrorist-supporting group are firmly affixed on the organization, the stigmatized can finally go to a judge. But, incredibly, the legal burden is explicitly put on them to prove they are not a terrorist-supporting group—completely reversing the burden of due process which properly belongs to the government.”
COMMENTS