A bill that would give President-elect Donald Trump broad powers to target his political foes has passed a major hurdle toward becoming law.
The House of Representatives on Thursday passed the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act in a 219-184 vote largely along party lines, with 15 Democrats joining the Republican majority.
The bill, also known as H.R. 9495, would empower the Treasury secretary to unilaterally designate any nonprofit as a “terrorist supporting organization” and revoke its tax-exempt status, effectively killing the group. Critics say the proposal would give presidential administrations a tool to crack down on organizations for political ends.
“Authoritarianism is not born overnight — it creeps in.”
The provision previously enjoyed bipartisan backing but steadily lost Democratic support in the aftermath of Trump’s election earlier this month. On Thursday, a stream of Democrats stood up to argue against the bill in a heated debate with its Republican supporters.
“Authoritarianism is not born overnight — it creeps in,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said Thursday on the House floor. “A tyrant tightens his grip not just by seizing power, but when he demands new powers and when those who can stop him willingly cede and bend to his will.”
Republicans were quick to highlight what they described as flip-flopping by Democrats who previously supported the bill, chalking the change up to “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
“The only thing that has changed for the majority of the people changing their votes over there is that Donald Trump will be president,” said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo. “That is very unfortunate.”
A previous bill with the provision was initially introduced in November 2023, in the early days of Israel’s U.S.-funded devastation of Gaza, with the ostensible goal of blocking U.S.-based nonprofits from supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and other supporters of the bill touted it as a tool to crack down on pro-Palestine groups they claim exploit tax laws to bolster Hamas and fuel antisemitism.
“My bill is straightforward: Tax-exempt nonprofits should not fund terrorist groups,” Tenney, whose extreme pro-Israel views extend to denying the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, wrote in a tweet last week.
It is already illegal for nonprofits or anyone else in the U.S. to provide material support to terrorist groups, and the federal government has means to enforce it, including prosecution and sanctions. Tenney’s bill, however, would sidestep due process.
The bill includes some guardrails to ensure due process, but much of the language is vague on specifics, and critics fear that even if a group were to successfully appeal their designation, few nonprofit organizations would survive the legal costs and the black mark on their reputation.
Democratic Flips
While a previous version of the bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support and passed 382-11 in a House vote in April, many Democrats have withdrawn their support, citing a fear that the incoming Trump administration could weaponize the bill.
“The road to fascism is paved with a million little votes that slowly erode our democracy and make it easier to go after anyone who disagrees with the government,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., on the House floor Tuesday. “Donald Trump says you’re a terrorist, so you’re a terrorist. My friends on the other side of the aisle know it’s nuts, even if they don’t want to admit it.”
The GOP majority in the House made an initial attempt to pass the bill last week under a suspension of the rules, a parliamentary procedure that requires a two-thirds supermajority to pass. That effort foundered on November 12, when 144 Democrats and one Republican came out against the bill, just barely meeting the threshold to block it.
Among the Democrats voting against the bill last week was Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., a co-sponsor. In a statement to The Intercept, Titus said her support for the bill had been solely based on the hostage tax-relief provision and accused her GOP colleagues of adding the nonprofit provision that “could be abused by a future administration.”
“I’ve become increasingly concerned that H.R. 9495 would be used inappropriately by the incoming Administration.”
Despite a majority of Democrats coming out against it in last week’s vote, the bill still received the support of 52 Democrats on November 12. On Thursday, that number dwindled to 15, as Democrats flipped in opposition, including Reps. Angie Craig, D-Minn., and Gabe Vasquez, D-N.M., both of whom cited Trump’s increasingly unhinged cabinet selections in their statements prior to the vote.
“I strongly oppose any actions that support foreign terrorist organizations,” Craig said Wednesday on X. “However, over the past several days as the president-elect has rolled out his cabinet nominees, I’ve become increasingly concerned that H.R. 9495 would be used inappropriately by the incoming Administration.”
Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Doggett Opposition
The campaign to stop the bill has come mainly from civil society groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as more than 150 other groups that have signed petitions against it. On Wednesday, a coalition of more than 55 Jewish organizations released a letter opposing the legislation. In Congress, Doggett, the Texas representative, emerged as the face of opposition to the bill, which he has described as both redundant and an alarmingly powerful authority to hand over to a Trump appointee.
“This bill is not about terrorism — it’s about giving Donald Trump unlimited authority to label his opponents as terrorists,” Doggett said in an appearance on MSNBC on Tuesday. “I think the law is perfectly adequate to deal with terrorism, and the Justice Department has in fact prosecuted some people for funding terrorism in the past.”
Democratic supporters of the bill have been largely silent. The Intercept reached out to more than a dozen of the 52 Democrats who voted for the bill on November 12, but only one member, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, responded. Golden’s spokesperson provided only a series of talking points attributable to his office.
“This bill is not about who is in the White House,” the spokesperson wrote in an email to The Intercept on Wednesday. “Congressman Golden supported the bill under President Biden and continues to support it with President-elect Trump about to take office.”
Other prominent supporters of the bill include so-called Blue Dog Democrats like Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., along with pro-Israel hawks like Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y. Torres was logged as “Not Voting” on Thursday.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., caught the ire of critics on social media who have argued that his support of the bill contrasts with his frequent and vocal complaints about would-be autocratic behavior by Trump. On Thursday, he changed his stance and voted against the bill. (A spokesperson for Schiff did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)
The rank and file have taken their cues from Democratic congressional leadership, which has been equally silent on the bill. While House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., voted against the bill at both recent floor votes. He appears to have done little to whip Democratic members in opposition, a task he largely left to Doggett and a handful of other vocal opponents of the bill.
In the Senate, Democratic opposition to the bill has come from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., while Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. has stayed mum on the issue. (Schumer did not respond to requests for comment from The Intercept.)
Typical Authoritarianism
Attacks on civil society are a hallmark of so-called democratic backsliding, in which elected leaders bend the law to their will.
Accordingly, multiple critics of the bill have compared it to similar legislation in Israel, Hungary, and Russia. In Nicaragua, a similar bill had a direct effect not only on free speech, but on the ability for aid workers to operate, according to Abby Maxman, the CEO of Oxfam America.
Maxman compared the bill to the law implemented in Nicaragua by the government of President Daniel Ortega, which shut down Oxfam’s operations in the country.
“The government gave us 72 hours to close down our operations after the passage of a similar bill, and our programming to provide food and humanitarian relief to thousands of people was gone within days,” Maxman said. “It’s a playbook. It’s been played, and we’re seeing it play out. We’re seeing that through-line from the bill to censorship to stopping our organization’s ability to work.”
“It’s a playbook. It’s been played, and we’re seeing it play out.”
Critics of the bill have raised concerns that it could allow the Treasury to target aid organizations in a similar way, especially in light of the repeated and numerous accusations made by Israel and its supporters against UNRWA, the U.N. agency tasked with providing aid to Palestinian refugees.
Even in a situation not quite as draconian as what took place in Nicaragua, any unfounded assertion of wrongdoing could jeopardize lifesaving aid work, Maxman said.
“We have policies and operational controls in place to ensure the assistance we provide gets to the people who are most in need, and we have no links with terrorist organizations,” Maxman said. “And yet, all you need is a sentence or a headline to associate an organization like ours with words that could affect how our supporters might feel in terms of the support they provide.”
Even the bill’s supporters are aware of the threat it could pose to groups like Oxfam. Earlier in the week, when H.R. 9495 was before the House Committee on Rules, Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., proposed an amendment that would strengthen protections for such groups. (A spokesperson for Schneider declined to comment.)
The bill proceeded without amendment, and Schneider once again cast his vote for it without the change. In the full House on Thursday, he again voted for it.
