Last month, the House passed a bill that would give the Treasury Department nearly unfettered ability to snatch the tax-exempt status of nonprofits, based on little more than whatever the incumbent administration considers “support” for terrorism. If the Senate passes a version of the bill, this power will soon be in the hands of President-elect Donald Trump, who repeatedly mused on the campaign trail about exacting vengeance on his political opponents.
On the surface, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495) appears to safeguard the country against groups hostile to American interests. But civil rights and women’s health groups rightfully fear the incoming Trump administration will use it to retaliate against organizations that are critical of its policies.
Civil rights and women’s health groups rightfully fear the incoming Trump administration will use it to retaliate against organizations that are critical of its policies.
While votes largely fell along party lines, 15 congressional Democrats broke from their party to support the bill, including Reps. Tom Suozzi of New York, Colin Allred of Texas and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida. Even more Democrats had initially expressed support for the bill, but withdrew their endorsements after outcry from organizations like the NAACP, AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers and Planned Parenthood sent a letter to Congress voicing strong opposition. Even Amnesty International raised concerns that H.R. 9495 would harm organizations that document human rights abuses globally.
To be sure, the president should (and largely does) have the ability to investigate foreign entities, and courts have given the executive branch nearly free rein to target groups outside our borders. But Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has already questioned this bill’s constitutionality, in part because the language does not sufficiently distinguish between foreign and domestic threats.
It’s quite significant that the first iteration of this legislation emerged during the spate of campus protests this year, where participating faculty and students may have been targeted with blanket surveillance. Rep. Rashid Tlaib, D-Mich., called the bill “dangerous” because it provides the president “unchecked power to target nonprofit organizations as political enemies.”
Tlaib’s language isn’t hyperbole. Vice President-elect JD Vance wrote in 2021 while running for Senate: “These organizations have declared war on America; now, we fight back.”
This all comes at a precarious moment for nonprofit organizations, given their robustness and integration in our civic framework. Labor unions, universities, museums, membership organizations and tenant advocates serve a significant public service — and under the next Trump administration are likely to face threats to their funding streams.
Colleges and universities have come under pressure for what Trump referred to as “wokeness” and has threatened to tax or “take away their endowments, and they will pay us billions and billions of dollars for the terror they have unleashed into our once-great country.”
Among the potential ramifications, student aid could substantially be reduced, creating greater disparities among the student body by making enrollment even more prohibitive for poor students. The entire pipeline among nonprofit organizations that support students making the transition from high school to college could see immediate and irreparable damage. The next Trump administration’s hostility to nonprofits it finds objectionable could lead to a chilling effect among donors, as well. Religious institutions could face grave challenges, as well. Black churches’ congregants overwhelmingly vote Democratic and have historically promoted social justice, literacy and economic development to uplift their communities. Black churches have become more active lately to help residents navigate the backlash to equity policies. There’s reasonable trepidation among black congregations that they, too, will be targeted by federal agencies The next Trump administration’s hostility to nonprofits it finds objectionable could lead to a chilling effect among donors, as well. Corporate, philanthropic and individual giving could be severely curtailed for fear of retaliation. A crucial part of American life — the care and concern for our neighbor through nonprofit organizations — could be deeply diminished. Americans trust nonprofits more than political and governmental institutions and the media. Not only should the Senate reject H.R. 9495, but Congress and state legislatures should take measures to shield nonprofits that routinely serve the most vulnerable among us from partisan retribution and retaliation.
Basil A. Smikle Jr.
Basil A. Smikle Jr. is a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party and lectures at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and at Teachers College. 
