HR 9495 will be reintroduced for a vote. The “terrorist supporting organizations” law would be dangerous.

On By Littum

Update, 21 November 2024, at 11:25: The bill to which this piece relates passed the house this morning largely along party lines, with only one Republican, Thomas Massie, voting no. However, 15 Democrats joined Republicans in voting yes to pass the bill. The original piece remains below.

President-elect Donald Trump must be expected to try to crack down on civil society in his second term. He has vowed to deport protesters and, before he was in office, considered having protesters exercise their First Amendment right to free assembly shot in the legs.

Members of Congress, and especially Democrats—ostensibly the opposition party—will thus be presented with a choice: Do they want legislation that empowers him in this goal, or potentially serves as a check against it?

One such early example is HR 9495, a bill that, through seemingly innocuous language, could very well be used to make things difficult to impossible for nonprofits and their actions, such as organizing and advocacy—work that is both an important part of a functioning liberal democracy and sometimes a decisive setback to power.

What is HR 9495?

The bill is the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Sanctions on American Hostages Act. It postpones certain tax filing deadlines for Americans and their spouses who are wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad. Greatyou say. I have no problem with that.

I agree! But HR 9495 also “repeals the tax exemption for terrorist supporting organizations.” Basic according to the text in the legislation, the Secretary of the Treasury can designate any organization as having met certain standards to qualify as “terrorist supporting.” The organization then has 90 days to “demonstrate to the Secretary’s satisfaction” that it is not, in fact, “terrorist supporting.” If it cannot do so, it is designated as such and has its tax exemption revoked. Repealing the “terrorist supporting” designation is also up to the secretary. No evidence or explanation is required.

OK, but I don’t want nonprofits that support terrorism to have tax-exempt status.

Sure! And that’s fair! But as the American Civil Liberties Union put it“This legislation would have given the Treasury Secretary the unilateral power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news media, universities and civil society groups — by stripping them of their tax-exempt status based on a unilateral allegation of wrongdoing.” And while we think about terrorism as an unequivocal thing, the label can be thrown around for political reasons.

For example, in 2021, Human Rights Watch protested when Israel labeled six Palestinian groups – including Defense for Children Palestine, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees – as “terrorist organisations”. Earlier this year, Amnesty International warned that Russia used anti-terror laws to clamp down on dissent (things that have evolved into prison sentences is now delivered for posting online). In any case, it is not difficult – for me – to see a Trump Treasury Secretary using this legislation to go after groups engaged in e.g. pro-Palestinian advocacy or who oppose police violence against black Americans. Take, for example, Jewish Voice for Peace, a group that Anti-Defamation League head Jonathan Greenblatt called an Iranian proxy on campus. Could that group lose its non-profit status for supporting terrorism? What about groups that have donated to JVP? In 2020 a police guide suggested that Black Lives Matter activists should be treated as terrorists. What if the secretary feels the same way?

Oh. I can see.

Right.

Okay, so what happened to the bill?

An earlier iteration of the legislation (which, we should note, is bipartisan) from back in April passed easily – only 11 members voted against it. (Per Interceptthen it “wandered” in the Senate.) This current version, although essentially identical, was voted down last week, after coverage who pointed out that the bill would expand Trump’s powers, and after lobbying by various groups involved in civil rights in various capacities. (For the sake of full disclosure, I should note here that I have worked as a fellow with Nexus projectwho work on issues related to anti-Semitism and Israel, and that people on the political side of Nexus, which I am not a part of, have people who speak to various Hill offices, including on the importance of controlling overall assignments.) More than 100 Democrats who voted for it for the first time flipped, and it failed to get the two-thirds majority it needed. Some Democrats still voted for it, though, and you can see who they were here. It is noteworthy that no one in the leadership of the Democratic House voted for the bill.

Oh, so it’s dead! Wait, why are you writing this?

Because yes, it failed, but it’s alive.

I don’t follow.

On Monday, the House Rules Committee adopted it. Republicans voted for what Democrats voted against, but Republicans are in charge and dominate the committee, so it passed. It now goes to the floor, where it only needs a simple majority to pass. That vote is expected on Thursday.

Why does it need a simple majority this time if it needed two-thirds last time?

Last week’s vote was a “suspension vote” which is a procedure used “to quickly dispose of non-controversial measures.” But this obviously turned out to be a more controversial measure than expected, so this time it will be dealt with in normal order, according to the guidelines of the Rules Committee. That means it only needs a simple majority, which the Republicans have. And that vote is expected this week.

So you’re telling me that after all this, this thing will pass the House?

Probably, yes. And in my view, the question for the Democrats who voted for it last week is whether they want to be a part of helping reverse the power to designate members of civil society as terrorists — without evidence or explanation or really much in the way of appeals -over to Trump and the Republican Party.

What about the Senate? Would it pass there?

No, it wouldn’t pass the Senate — for now. But next session the Republicans will be in control there also.