A new bill winding its way through Congress would put nonprofits engaged in the vital work of radical political critique squarely in the crosshairs of the incoming Trump administration. Under the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, or H.R. 9495, the secretary of the Treasury would be granted unilateral power to investigate and revoke the tax-exempt status of news outlets, civil society groups and universities. Dubbed the “Kill Nonprofits Bill” by critics, it would provide the federal government with the discretion to effectively shut down nonprofits it deems guilty of “supporting terrorism.”
While there are already laws criminalizing support for terrorism, H.R. 9495 would increase the secretary’s arbitrary authority to criminalize and chill dissent. Given that the secretary is appointed by the president, it is ripe for abuse by the executive branch.
A wide-ranging coalition of over 180 nonprofits and labor unions have vocally opposed the bill, arguing that it is vague and authoritarian. H.R. 9495 does not define what constitutes terrorism (note that Nelson Mandela remained on the U.S. government’s terrorist watch list until 2008), nor does it clearly define what constitutes material “support” for so-called terrorist organizations. These are likely to include so-called Black Identity Extremists, environmental defenders labeled eco-terrorists and perhaps even those criticizing the savage health care system. However, much of the attention to H.R. 9495 so far has focused on the powers of the federal government to silence and extinguish Palestinian solidarity.
The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and co-sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats, passed the House in November by a vote of 219 to 184. If it clears the Senate, it will provide Trump with new powers to harass, silence and eliminate nonprofits seen as hostile to his agenda.
H.R. 9495 would increase the Treasury secretary’s arbitrary authority to criminalize and chill dissent.
In the popular narrative, H.R. 9495 is a threat to the humanitarian nonprofit sector as a whole. But by treating the nonprofit left as a monolithic community, this masks the true target of the bill: the radical left. And here, by radical, I mean those pressing for full political, economic and social equality, across all societies. This egalitarian left is distinct from the mainstream liberal and many progressive perspectives that seek to push capitalism and other systems of inequality in slightly more equal directions, while leaving the core of inequality intact.
Indeed, the larger, more mainstream and less controversial nonprofits are hardly threatened by this bill, as they conform to the status-quo stances of their wealthy benefactors. It’s the smaller organizations operating on the political and financial edge that have the most to fear.
Let’s take two examples. First, the popular legal website, Lawfare, is run by co-founder and editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, who, two days after the Hamas-led attack on Israel, opined that Hamas is “something of a death cult” motivated, in part, by “apocalyptic” logic. Prior to Oct. 7, Wittes had celebrated Israel’s military conduct, holding that Hamas (but not Israel) “has an entire strategy built around violation of [international humanitarian law].”
Not surprisingly, Lawfare’s publications are generally sympathetic to Israeli occupation. Its coverage of recent events seeks to muddy the water by arguing, for instance, that the International Court of Justice is ignoring Jewish people’s “deep historical ties” to the land — a staple point by Zionists seeking to justify occupation, apartheid and aggression. Meanwhile, the site features no articles condemning the Israeli genocide on full display for anyone to see.
Lawfare is run in cooperation with the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank that holds similar positions on Israel-Palestine. It has refused to take a stance on or engage with scholars and multiple high-profile reports accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza but has no problem attributing genocide in Ukraine, Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda and Armenia.
Other mainstream nonprofits, such as the liberal think tank New America, have exhibited more or less the same biases. The Brookings Institution and New America are both rich nonprofits that receive significant funding from behemoths like the Bill & Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations, as well as large corporations. In 2023, Brookings received $89.4 million in revenue, while New America took in $46.8 million. In general, these big nonprofits tend to adopt the mainstream perspectives favored by their ultra-rich funders.
Some big nonprofits tasked with assessing human rights law, such as Human Rights Watch (which raked in $94.2 million in 2023) and Amnesty International ($63.1 million), have taken strong stances against Israeli colonization, apartheid and genocide. Yet, because they have deep pockets and a global reputation, they are less threatened by H.R. 9495 than the small nonprofits at the forefront of radical critique.
With H.R. 9495, small nonprofits would be susceptible to government lawfare.
The right-wing forces promoting a witch hunt against leftist nonprofits are crystal clear that they want pro-Palestine nonprofits wiped off the map. A report by the right-wing Capital Research Center labels all the major organizations in the anti-Israel protest movement as “pro-terrorist groups,” from 7amleh and ANSWER, to the Movement for Black Lives and the Palestinian Feminist Collective. The CRC is explicitly devoted to targeting left-wing nonprofits through reports, testimonies before Congress and its website, InfluenceWatch, which provides a wiki-style exposé of nonprofits. Its president, Walter Scott, is linked to the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank.
For its part, the Heritage Foundation’s “Project Esther” targets “a highly organized, global Hamas Support Network composed of alleged “Hamas support organizations,” like Jewish Voices for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine. Project Esther aims to “neutralize” the “far-left” movement by “dismantling” the infrastructure supporting it. This would include “purging” its “propaganda” from curricula, firing academic faculty and staff, denying the ability of so-called “HSOs” to raise money, and censoring social media.
Almost all the nonprofits listed are small organizations.
With H.R. 9495, small nonprofits would be susceptible to government lawfare, which could drain their resources in legal battles should they be accused of “supporting terrorism.” To stave off legal battles, small organizations may resort to self-censorship. With the passage of H.R. 9495, the nonprofit space may further concentrate into the hands of Big Nonprofits, with the ability of small nonprofits to distinguish themselves for their principled stances diminished.
We’re living in a situation where drastic transformations are necessary to solve the environmental crisis. The last thing we want in the era of Donald Trump, the rise of neo-fascism and environmental crisis is to shrink the space of dissent. Those concerned with free speech and socio-ecological justice should call their senators and tell them to oppose H.R. 9495.