SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nonprofits
After Previously Voting With GOP, 52 House Dems Targeted to Oppose 'Nonprofit Killer' Bill
"Every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," wrote one campaigner.
Nov 20, 2024
House Republicans have revived an effort to pass the so-called "nonprofit killer" bill—a piece of legislation that, if passed, would hand U.S. President-elect Donald Trump the ability to sanction civil society groups, including government watchdogs, news outlets, and humanitarian organizations.
A vote on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495), which would allow the Treasury Department to remove tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed "terrorist supporting organizations," is expected on Thursday.
But a wide coalition of organizations and individuals have voiced their opposition to the bill, including multiple groups that have mobilized to pressure House members to vote against it, particularly the 52 Democrats who previously voted in favor of it.
The controversial bill was blocked last week when 144 Democrats and one Republican voted against the bill after it was fast-tracked under a procedure that requires two-thirds majority support for passage. Republicans then brought it back through the House Rules Committee, teeing it up for a simple majority floor vote.
The 52 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill include Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).
Groups including Muslims for Progressive Values, Fight for the Future, Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the union The NewsGuild-CWA have launched an advocacy effort to pressure those 52 Democrats to flip their votes and urge all members of the House to vote no on the bill.
"H.R. 9495 is a threat to our basic right to free speech, dissent, and advocacy. Democrats who claim to defend democracy must be called out for their SUPPORT of this bill. This bill will silence non-profits who speak up for human rights of Palestinians, reproductive rights, against deportations or ANY government policies," wrote Muslims for Progressive Values.
Some of Democrats who voted in favor have since said they will no longer support the bill.
Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) released the following statement on Monday: "I have heard loud and clear from folks in my district and understand the concerns of my constituents, non-profit leaders and their staff. The incoming administration's recent Cabinet nominations give me little faith that this tool would be used as originally intended. Therefore, I have decided to vote against H.R. 9495 and will continue acting in our district's and nation's best interests."
There is fear that the bill would, in particular, have a chilling impact on Palestinian rights organizations and pro-Palestine speech.
"This bill was designed to criminalize organizations and activists who oppose the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel's genocide of Palestinians and the slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Such legislation threatened the constitutional rights of American nonprofits, houses of worship, and advocacy organizations—regardless of political orientation. Lawmakers must understand the serious, long-term dangers of advancing bills or investigations that seek to suppress lawful activism and silence dissent," according to a joint statement issued by Arab and Muslim American groups last week.
Lia Holland, the campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement that "it's a disappointment but not a surprise to find Democrats voting for a bill to punish student protests against genocide on the wrong side of their entire values system. Over and over again, we've seen how legislative efforts designed to oppress dissent and silence speech end up burning their progenitors."
"H.R. 9495 is no exception—now, every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," Holland added.
Others have also critiqued the proposed legislation on broader civil rights and free speech grounds.
"H.R. 9495 provides no due process or oversight, creating a tool for political retaliation under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' Trump would abuse this power to retaliate against any [organization] that challenges his agenda. The 52 Dems who initially supported it must reverse course," wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch."
"While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum," Hamadanchy added, "the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems, Don’t Give Trump the Tools to Crush Protest Groups He Doesn’t Like
A bipartisan bill that would enable the next administration to strip nonprofits of their status is an example of how the crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism could make it easier for Trump to crush all dissent.
Nov 20, 2024
You could see this one coming.
It seems like about five years ago—in this crazy, mixed-up world of ours—but it was just last April when student protests over Israel’s post-October 7 attacks on Gaza and the deaths of Palestinian civilians roiled dozens of college campuses from coast-to-coast.
The tent encampments and student-led marches, from the Penn campus here in Philly to UCLA some 3,000 miles away, hearkened back to the youth unrest of the 1960s, but things were a little different this time. In an overheated election year, with some leading politicians accusing the protesters of antisemitism, university leaders were quicker to call in the police, who didn’t hesitate to make arrests or use force.
it’s hard to know much reluctance to take to the streets is also driven by the fresh memories of the riot cops on campus last spring and their aggressive tactics, which led to more than 3,100 arrests.
At the time, a few pundits warned that the aggressive police-state tactics felt like a grim foreshadowing of what could await all protesters—not just those in opposition to Israel’s far-right government and its war tactics—if an authoritarian Donald Trump won the November election. One wrote: “By the time a returned-to-the-White-House Trump makes good on his vow to send out troops and tanks to put down any January 20, 2025, inauguration protesters, America might be numb to such images.”
OK, I cheated: That pundit was me. But now that Trump is indeed the president-elect, with a vow of retribution against his political enemies, there’s growing concern that the incoming administration will clamp down hard on the right of dissent that is supposed to be guaranteed in the First Amendment. In a 4:00 am posting to his Truth Social website, the 45th and soon-to-be 47th POTUS confirmed that he plans to use the U.S. military for his sweeping mass-deportation agenda, which did little to calm fears that troops could also put down protests.
Meanwhile, and even more urgently, a bipartisan bill is racing through the current lame-duck session of Congress that—in an echo of the police-state style crackdown against the Gaza protests, which were often in Democratic-run jurisdictions—could have a much more sweeping impact.
The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act—also known as H.R. 9495—emerged from the uproar over the Gaza protests to give an administration’s treasury secretary, without further input from Congress, the ability to potentially devastate nonprofit groups by stripping their nonprofit status if they determine the group is “a terrorist supporting organization.” The bill’s bipartisan backers proposed the measure with more radical pro-Palestinian groups in mind, and also tied the bill to an understandably popular second measure that removes the threat of tax penalties for Americans held hostage overseas, including as many as four to seven now in Gaza.
Some 52 Democrats, including the staunchest supporters of Israel’s conduct, joined the GOP House majority last week in an effort to fast-track the bill that needed a two-thirds majority and fell just short. This week, the bill is moving toward final House approval that would only require a simple majority—even as progressive Democrats are increasingly alarmed that the incoming Trump administration will use to measure to punish other left-leaning groups that have nothing to do with Palestine.
“I think in view of Trump’s election, this bill basically authorizes him to impose a death penalty on any nonprofit in America or any civil society group that happens to be on his enemies list and claim that they’re a terrorist,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, told The Washington Postin voicing the growing liberal alarm over the measure. The congressman said those fears would apply to “a hospital performing an abortion, a community news outlet that he doesn’t think is giving him sufficient attention—or basically anyone, certainly groups that might be trying to assist migrants in this country.”
The measure is also opposed by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the international anti-famine organization Oxfam International, which chillingly compared H.R. 9495 to what it’s confronted around the globe trying to function in authoritarian regimes. “This bill follows the same playbook Oxfam has seen other governments around the world use to crush dissent,” its American CEO said last week in a statement. “Now we are seeing it here at home.”
Mother Jones also notes in a new piece that the anti-Gaza-protest playbook will likely inspire a Trump regime in other ways, including following through on his campaign threats to deport campus protesters. Cornell University grad student Momodou Taal—a protester whose student visa was revoked but has dodged deportation, for now—told the magazine that last spring’s crackdown set an awful precedent, saying: “I think what [President Joe] Biden has allowed for is that the clampdown is made easier for Trump now because the groundwork has already been laid.”
Indeed, Cornell’s moves to suspend Taal and other pro-Palestinian students who disrupted a job fair in September is just one part of a campus crusade against dissent and, arguably, free speech that seems to have succeeded in sharply reducing protests against the killing of civilians in Gaza—or against anything else for that matter.
In the two weeks since Trump’s election to another term, protests have been—with a handful of exceptions involving the socialist far left—a dog that hasn’t barked, in sharp contrast to Trump’s initial victory in 2016. Mostly that’s because many who formed a “Trump Resistance” eight years ago have concluded that mass protest isn’t the most effective tactic, but it’s hard to know much reluctance to take to the streets is also driven by the fresh memories of the riot cops on campus last spring and their aggressive tactics, which led to more than 3,100 arrests.
But this much is clear: If Democrats are serious about serving as the last line of defense against Trump’s most monarchical tendencies, the last thing they should be doing right now should be giving the incoming president a tool to quash protest groups he doesn’t like, using dictatorial fiat. Over the last 14 days, I’ve received a ton of reader emails asking what they can do to make a difference and not surrender to the end of American democracy as we’ve known it. Here’s one simple and easy thing: Call your member of Congress and urge them to oppose an un-American piece of legislation called H.R. 9495.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Safeguarding Free Speech and Protecting Civil Rights in America
This bill is not just a threat to pro-Palestinian organizations; it endangers any group that engages in dissent or challenges government policies.
Nov 18, 2024
Congress is once again attempting to silence pro-Palestinian voices and restrict free speech. After failing to secure a two-thirds majority last Tuesday, House leaders are bringing HR 9495 back for a vote today, attempting to pass it with a simple majority. It is deeply concerning that they are doubling down on this dangerous bill—one that would deal a severe blow to free speech and place pro-Palestinian nonprofits and other advocacy organizations in peril. We must unite to defeat this legislation.
Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire for retribution against those he perceives as adversaries. On the campaign trail, he has alluded to taking aggressive actions, joking about being a dictator on "day one" in office, pledging to jail journalists, and threatening to retaliate against political foes. As his return to the White House looms, Congress is moving to hand a Trump administration a powerful tool that could be wielded against ideological opponents in civil society.
Up for a potential new vote as early as today in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as HR 9495, would grant the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a "terrorist-supporting organization." The bill's vague and overreaching language lacks clear definitions and safeguards, effectively empowering the federal government to investigate and penalize nonprofits based solely on their First Amendment-protected advocacy for human rights. This bill is not just a threat to pro-Palestinian organizations; it endangers any group that engages in dissent or challenges government policies.
The ramifications of HR 9495 are clear: if passed, this law could subject countless nonprofit organizations to harassment, investigation, and unjust penalties simply for engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected advocacy.
For me, this fight is deeply personal. Over 113 of my family members have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. This tragic loss has driven me to dedicate my life to advocating for peace, justice, and an end to the suffering that plagues the region. Yet, instead of honoring the rights of individuals who have lost loved ones to violence, Congress is attempting to silence us by pushing bills like HR 9495 that effectively criminalize our grief, our commitment to peace, and our calls for justice. Such legislation adds insult to injury and undermines the principles of freedom and democracy that America professes to uphold.
The ramifications of HR 9495 are clear: if passed, this law could subject countless nonprofit organizations to harassment, investigation, and unjust penalties simply for engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected advocacy. It sets a chilling precedent, blurring the line between political dissent and terrorism in ways that erode our democratic freedoms. By threatening to silence voices advocating for Palestinian human rights, Congress is betraying the constitutional values it claims to uphold, including freedom of speech, association, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Our elected officials must protect the constitutional rights of all citizens and organizations, regardless of political ideology or perspective. Now is the time to defend—not restrict—the essential rights that sustain our democracy.
HR 9495 would be a powerful tool to stifle crucial debate about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East if enacted. It would discourage honest conversations about our nation's role in impacting human rights abroad and inhibit the exchange of ideas necessary for a healthy democracy. For families like mine, this bill adds another layer of trauma—stripping us of the right to speak out about the suffering we have experienced firsthand. It sends a message that our pain is inconsequential and that advocating for peace and justice is unwelcome or, worse, punishable.
Historically, efforts to suppress dissent have never boded well for democracy. From the Red Scare to the Civil Rights Movement, we have seen the dangers of allowing the government to silence voices under the guise of national security. Such actions often lead to the marginalization of minority communities and the erosion of civil liberties for all. HR 9495 threatens to repeat these dark chapters of our history by giving the Treasury Department unchecked power without adequate oversight or accountability.
From the Red Scare to the Civil Rights Movement, we have seen the dangers of allowing the government to silence voices under the guise of national security.
We must ask ourselves: what kind of nation do we want to be? Do we want to uphold the principles of freedom and justice enshrined in our Constitution, or do we want to drift toward authoritarianism, where dissent is punished and minority voices are suppressed? Advocating for peace should never be a crime, and punishing those who do so only deepens the injustices we strive to confront.
We urge members of Congress to reconsider this dangerous path and vote down HR 9495 and any similar legislation that may arise in the future. Our elected officials must protect the constitutional rights of all citizens and organizations, regardless of political ideology or perspective. Now is the time to defend—not restrict—the essential rights that sustain our democracy. By defeating HR 9495, Congress can reaffirm our nation's commitment to justice, free speech, and the power of peaceful advocacy.
In addition to legislative action, we call upon civil society, community leaders, and everyday citizens to raise their voices against this bill. Contact your representatives, write to your local newspapers, and engage in peaceful demonstrations to show that we will not stand by while our rights are eroded. It is through action and solidarity that we can safeguard our collective freedoms.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular