Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire for revenge.
On the campaign trail, he joked about being a dictator on “day one” in office, pledged to jail journalists, and threatened to retaliate against political foes who he felt had wronged him.
Now, just days after he secured a second term in the White House, Congress is already moving to hand a resurgent Trump administration a powerful cudgel that it could wield against ideological opponents in civil society.
Up for a potential fast-track vote next week in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as H.R. 9495, would grant the secretary of the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a “terrorist supporting organization.”
The resolution has already prompted strong opposition from a wide range of civil society groups, with more than 100 organizations signing an open letter issued by the American Civil Liberties Union in September.
“This is about stifling dissent and to chill advocacy, because people are going to avoid certain things.”
With Trump set to return to office, it’s more urgent than ever to beat the legislation back, said Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU.
“This is about stifling dissent and to chill advocacy, because people are going to avoid certain things and take certain positions in order to avoid this designation,” Hamadanchy told The Intercept. “And then on top of that you have a president-elect who’s spent a lot of time on the campaign trail talking about punishing his opponents and what he wants to do to student protesters — and you’re giving him another tool.”
It’s unclear how Democrats will view the bill in light of Trump’s return to power. A spokesperson for Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, who did not oppose a previous version of the nonprofit provision, told The Intercept Doggett is likely to vote against the measure following Trump’s reelection.
The current version — which was introduced by Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and co-sponsored by Brad Schneider, D-Ill., and Dina Titus, D-Nev. — is paired with a provision that would provide tax relief to American hostages held by terror groups and other Americans unjustly imprisoned abroad.
Hamadanchy said combining the two provisions was likely a ploy to push the nonprofit-terror bill through with as little opposition as possible.
“They attached it to a super popular bill that everyone likes because they want to make it hard for people to vote ‘no,’” Hamadanchy said. “The reality is that if they really wanted the hostage thing to become law, they’d pass that by itself.”
No Evidence Needed
Under the bill, the Treasury secretary would issue notice to a group of intent to designate it as a “terrorist supporting organization.” Once notified, an organization would have the right to appeal within 90 days, after which it would be stripped of its 501(c)(3) status, named for the statute that confers tax exemptions on recognized nonprofit groups.
The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence.
“It basically empowers the Treasury secretary to target any group it wants to call them a terror supporter and block their ability to be a nonprofit,” said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action, which opposes the law. “So that would essentially kill any nonprofit’s ability to function. They couldn’t get banks to service them, they won’t be able to get donations, and there’d be a black mark on the organization, even if it cleared its name.”
“That would essentially kill any nonprofit’s ability to function.”
The bill could also imperil the lifesaving work of nongovernmental organizations operating in war zones and other hostile areas where providing aid requires coordination with groups designated as terrorists by the U.S., according to a statement issued last year by the Charity & Security Network.
“Charitable organizations, especially those who work in settings where designated terrorist groups operate, already undergo strict internal due diligence and risk mitigation measures,” the group wrote. “As the prohibition on material support to foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) already exists, and is applicable to U.S. nonprofits, this proposed legislation is redundant and unnecessary.”
If it proceeds, the bill will go to the House floor in a “suspension vote,” a fast-track procedure that limits debate and allows a bill to bypass committees and move on to the Senate as long as it receives a two-thirds supermajority in favor.
It is already very illegal to provide material support for terrorism. And material support laws have been used, at times aggressively, to bring criminal charges against people and groups accused of supporting proscribed terrorist groups abroad.
The new bill on terror designations for tax-exempt nonprofits, however, would slash through the pesky red tape — constitutional checks and balances — of due process, presumption of innocence, and other protections afforded to defendants accused in criminal court of providing material support to terror groups.
Pro-Palestine Groups at Risk
In the past year, accusations of support for terrorism have been freely lobbed at student protesters, aid workers in Gaza, and even mainstream publications like the New York Times. In unscrupulous hands, the powers of the proposed law could essentially turn the Treasury Department into an enforcement arm of Canary Mission and other hard-line groups dedicated to doxxing and smearing their opponents as terrorists.
With very few guardrails in place, the new bill would give broad new powers to the federal government to act on such accusations — and not just against pro-Palestine groups, according to Costello.
“The danger is much broader than just groups that work on foreign policy,” said Costello. “It could target major liberal funders who support Palestinian solidarity and peace groups who engage in protest. The language of the current resolution allows for targeting of pro-choice and environmental groups, according to Costello. The discretion lies with the Trump administration on whom to target, with little recourse for the affected organizations.
The bill, previously passed by the House in April, faced opposition from members of Congress concerned about limitations and potential misuse. Pro-Israel pressure groups have lobbied in favor of the bill, while the ACLU and other organizations have expressed opposition.
Despite concerns raised since Trump’s return to office, some Democrats are using the hostage provision to justify their support for the bill. Dissent may not be limited to the 11 members who previously voted against it.
During a hearing, Rep. Doggett raised questions about the bill’s implications, including the lack of requirement for the Treasury to disclose reasons for denying tax-exempt status. The possibility of misuse by an administration seeking vengeance was also discussed, with no clear limitations identified in the bill. Please rewrite this sentence for me.
Source link
