Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire for revenge.
On the campaign trail, he joked about being a dictator on his “first day” in office, promised to jail journalists and threatened retaliation against political opponents he felt had wronged him.
Days after he secured a second term in the White House, Congress is already moving to hand the resurgent Trump administration a powerful cudgel that it can wield against ideological opponents in civil society. I’m showing it.
Scheduled for an immediate vote in the House of Representatives next week, the “Suspension of Terrorist Financing and American Hostage Tax Penalties Act,” also known as HR 9495, would give the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral authority to cancel this tax. It is something to give. Nonprofit organization status is exempt from being considered a “terrorist supporting organization.”
The resolution has already sparked strong opposition from a wide range of civil society groups, with more than 100 groups signing an open letter published by the American Civil Liberties Union in September.
“This is meant to stifle dissent and chill advocacy because it makes people avoid certain things.”
Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy advisor for the ACLU, said defeating this bill is more urgent than ever with Trump’s return to office looming.
“This is meant to stifle dissent and chill advocacy, because people will avoid certain things and take certain positions to avoid this designation,” Hamadanchy told The Intercept. spoke. “Add to that that you have a president-elect who has spent a lot of time on the campaign trail talking about punishing opponents and what he wants to do to student protesters, and you give him another tool. There will be.”
It is unclear how Democrats will view this bill given Trump’s return to power. A spokesperson for Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who did not oppose the previous nonprofit provision, told The Intercept that he is likely to vote against the bill following Trump’s reelection. -Told Mr. Doggett.
The current version was introduced by Representative Claudia Tenney (New York) and co-sponsored by Representatives Brad Schneider (Illinois) and Dina Titus (D-Nebraska). The bill is combined with provisions that provide tax relief to American hostages held by terrorist organizations and other Americans wrongfully imprisoned overseas.
Hamadanchi said the combination of the two provisions was likely a ploy to push the nonprofit terrorism bill through with as little opposition as possible.
“They added this bill to a very popular bill that everyone likes to make it harder for people to vote ‘no,'” Hamadanchy said. “The reality is, if they really wanted to legislate the hostage crisis into law, they would pass it themselves.”
no proof needed
Under this bill, the Secretary of the Treasury would issue a notice designating intended entities as “terrorist supporting organizations.” Once notified, an organization has 90 days to appeal, after which it will be stripped of its 501(c)(3) status. This position is named after the law that exempts qualified nonprofit organizations from paying taxes.
The law does not require officials to explain the reasons for group designation, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence.
Ryan Costello, policy director for the National Iranian American Council Action, which opposes the law, said, “This law basically gives the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to target any entity that he wants to call a terrorist sponsor, and not just nonprofit organizations.” “It gives them the power to block their ability to act as such.” “So that would essentially kill any nonprofit organization. You wouldn’t be able to get banks to service you, you wouldn’t get donations, and even if your name was cleared, it would kill the organization. It will leave a stain.”
“That would essentially kill all nonprofit functions.”
The bill also would allow non-governmental organizations operating in combat zones and other hostile areas to coordinate with groups designated as terrorists by the United States to provide aid, according to a statement released last year by the Charity & Security Network. Potentially jeopardize the organization’s life-saving efforts.
“Charities, particularly those operating in environments where designated terrorist groups operate, already have rigorous internal due diligence and risk mitigation measures in place,” the group said. “This bill is redundant and unnecessary because the prohibition on material support to foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) already exists and applies to U.S. nonprofit organizations.”
If the bill passes, it will be sent to the House of Representatives on a “holding vote.” This is an expedited procedure that limits debate and allows bills to bypass committees and advance to the Senate as long as there is a two-thirds supermajority. I agree.
Providing material support to terrorism is already highly illegal. And the Material Assistance Act has been used, sometimes aggressively, to bring criminal charges against people and groups accused of supporting banned terrorist groups abroad.
However, the new bill regarding the terrorist designation of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations would require due process, the presumption of innocence, and other protections afforded to defendants accused in criminal court of providing material support to other nonprofit organizations. It would break down onerous red tape and constitutional checks and balances. terrorist group.
Pro-Palestinian organizations at risk
Over the past year, accusations of supporting terrorism have been freely hurled at student protesters, aid workers in the Gaza Strip, and even mainstream publications like the New York Times. In the wrong hands, the powers of the proposed legislation could effectively turn the Treasury Department into the executive arm of the Canary Mission and other hardline groups, dedicated to exposing and stigmatizing opponents as terrorists. There is sex.
With few guardrails in place, Costello said the new bill would give the federal government broad new powers to deal with such charges, and not just against pro-Palestinian groups.
“The danger is much broader than just foreign policy groups,” Costello said. “Major liberal funders supporting Palestinian solidarity and peace groups holding protests could be targeted, but in theory it could be used to target pro-choice groups. It has the potential to be used against environmental protection groups.
“It’s really going to be up to the Trump administration to decide who to target.”
Costello added: “Who it targets is left to the discretion of the Trump administration, leaving targeted organizations with little recourse.”
An earlier version of the bill passed the House in April by a vote of 382-11.
The April bill stalled in a Senate committee, but the current resolution’s language is virtually the same. Records show that pro-Israel lobbying groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Republican Jewish Federation have all lobbied on the bill. (All three groups did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
In addition to an open letter from the ACLU and 125 other religious, human rights, and civil liberties organizations, more than 40,000 people signed a petition asking members of Congress to oppose the bill.
Regardless of the concerns that have arisen since Trump returned to office, some Democrats pushing the bill cite the hostage clause to justify their position. There are some too.
A spokesperson for Titus, a co-sponsor of the new bill, told The Intercept: “The congressman continues to support the bill because it will provide tax relief to Americans who are unjustly detained and held hostage overseas.” he said.
“I am not aware of any limitations in the bill.”
In April, much of the opposition to the first iteration of the bill came from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who had broken with party leadership over support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Among Democrats, opponents of the bill included all members of the progressive wing. Across the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a Tea Party alumnus with libertarian leanings who has broken with the Republican Party’s support for Israel, also voted against the bill.
This time, opposition may not be limited to the 11 members who voted “no” in April.
Doggett, a Texas Democrat who is likely to vote against the bill, did not vote for the April version of the provision. The decision came after he raised concerns at a price increase hearing held on September 11.
During the hearing, Doggett asked a number of pointed questions to Robert Harvey, deputy chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan panel of experts tasked with explaining the bill to members of Congress.
“My understanding is that all the Secretary of the Treasury has to do to deny tax exemption is to mail a notice to the organization concerned that says, “You are a terrorist supporting organization and “What is the exemption?” asked Doggett.
“That’s right, Mr. Doggett,” Harvey replied.
“And does this bill require the Treasury Department to disclose the reasons for denying tax-exempt status?” Doggett asked.
“I don’t think they need to disclose,” Harvey said.
“Don’t they have to provide evidence that they trusted them?” Doggett said.
“Don’t you have to provide proof that they trusted you?”
“I don’t know that, Mr. Doggett.”
Finally, Doggett asks Harvey a question, which he sarcastically calls a far-fetched one.
“Let me just ask you, I don’t think this is a realistic possibility, but let’s assume there was a regime that was sworn to take revenge on its adversaries,” Doggett said. “Prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law and imposing long prison terms on lawyers, political operatives, illegal voters, and corrupt election officials who believe that anyone who does not applaud them is a traitor. A person who believes that there is someone who worked tirelessly to bring him to justice, or to ensure his defeat—a person whose president’s Treasury secretary has designated him as a “terrorist supporting organization.” , are there any restrictions on stripping an organization of its nonprofit status? ”
“Mr. Doggett, it will require me to make some guesses,” Harvey replied. “But I’m not aware of any limitations in this bill.”
