Picture: Associated Press
Washington, D.C. Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bill that would give the Treasury Department the power to take away the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that it says support terrorism. This has civil liberties groups worried about how a second Trump president could use this power to punish political opponents.
The bill passed with 219 votes to 184. Most of the votes came from Republicans, who said that Democrats had changed their minds about supporting the “common sense” plan only after Donald Trump was elected to a second term earlier this month.
On the House floor before the vote, Rep. Jason Smith, the GOP chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said that even if Vice President Kamala Harris had won the election, his colleagues from the other party would still back the bill. “And it is our job as Congresspeople to make sure that taxpayers aren’t giving money to terrorists,” the Missouri politician said. “It’s really easy.”
But many nonprofits are worried about the plan because they think it could be used to go after news outlets, universities, and civil society groups that a future president’s government doesn’t agree with. They say that groups don’t get enough due process.
“This bill is an authoritarian play by Republicans to give the executive branch more power to go after political enemies and silence political dissent,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said before the vote on the House floor.
Some people also think it’s pointless because supporting terrorist groups is already against the law in the U.S. The plan is now going to the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, where its fate is unclear. It would also delay tax filing deadlines for Americans who are being held hostage or illegally detained abroad.
A study of an earlier version of the bill by the Congressional Research Service says that it would create a new type of group called “terrorist supporting organizations.” Any outfit that the Treasury Secretary says has given material support to a terrorist group in the last three years falls into this category.
Jenn Holcomb, vice president of government relations at the Council on Foundations, said, “We think this law goes too far.” “It would give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to label a 501(c)(3) nonprofit as a terrorist group whenever they want.” And our worry is that it doesn’t have enough to really make sure that a nonprofit knows why a secretary chose to name them as such.
The bill would give a charity that has been labeled as “supporting terrorism” 90 days to fight that label. Some groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, say that the bill doesn’t require the Secretary of Treasury to show all the proof that was used to make the decision.
In order to protect national security and law enforcement, the bill text says that the Treasury must send “a description of such material support or resources.”
The Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofits, and the United Philanthropy Forum all said the same thing: the bill would put the proof on the nonprofit. The Council on Foundations also said that even if the nonprofit was eventually found not guilty, it would “risk irreparable damage to their operations and reputation.”
Should the bill become law, it might affect many types of nonprofits, such as unions, private charities, and membership groups.
After Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, a version of the bill was first brought up. The House passed a previous version of the bill in April, with the help of some Democrats.
The bill was also put to a vote last week, but it didn’t get the two-thirds majority needed because the rules were being broken.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat, is the only Palestinian-American in Congress. She said Thursday before the vote that it would be her third time voting against the bill.
She said, “I don’t care who is president of the United States.” “This is a bad and unconstitutional bill that would give the government unchecked power to shut down nonprofits without due process if they are seen as political enemies.”
