US House Votes against Anti-NGO Bill That Could Target Pro-Palestine Groups

On Tuesday, the House voted on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, or HR 9495, which failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Critics argued the legislation risked targeting pro-Palestinian and other advocacy groups. It was initially introduced following a surge of campus protests against Israel’s crimes in Gaza, during which some Palestinian solidarity organizations were labeled “pro-Hamas” by pro-Israel politicians and media.

With President-elect Donald Trump’s recent election victory, concerns over the bill’s potential reach intensified. Trump’s administration, according to civil rights advocates, could wield the legislation as a tool to curb dissent, unchecked by meaningful oversight.

“This is much more of a real threat right now,” Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, told Al Jazeera ahead of the vote. “We know that Trump is going to be president. I don’t know if it’s the time to give him additional authority.”

Hamadanchy explained that losing nonprofit status would financially strain organizations by removing tax exemptions, adding that targeted groups could face the penalty without access to the evidence justifying it.

“The entire process is run at the sole discretion of the secretary of (the) treasury,” Hamadanchy said. “So you could have your nonprofit status revoked before you ever have a chance to have a hearing.”

Being labeled as “pro-terrorist” poses even broader challenges, he said, from potential legal fees to losing donor support.

The bill also proposed tax relief for US citizens held captive by “terror groups” or unjustly imprisoned abroad. By linking this provision with the nonprofit penalty, lawmakers sought bipartisan support, critics noted.

Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, highlighted that current laws already bar “material support” for US-designated “terror” groups. “There’s actual due process,” Friedman said, noting existing measures for the Justice Department to revoke nonprofit status.

Republican Congressman David Kustoff, a co-sponsor, argued in April that current procedures are inadequate, describing them as a “time-consuming bureaucratic process.”

Critics worry that removing oversight from the process could turn it into a partisan weapon.

“When the bill was first introduced, it generated pushback from across the political spectrum,” Friedman explained. “Are we at a point now where Republicans have decided there will never again be a government that could come back to bite them so they’re going to support unlimited anything? I don’t know.”

Critics held out hope that Democrats in Congress would oppose further powers to the Trump administration. “The MAGA crackdown on free speech is already starting in Congress,” Eva Borgwardt, a spokesperson for the IfNotNow Movement, wrote. “It is unconscionable that any Democrat would sign over these sweeping powers.”

Basim Elkarra of CAIR Action warned that the bill could “allow the government to silence and disband organizations on a whim,” while Chris Habiby from the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee noted that while Palestinian rights groups may be initial targets, they “will not be the last.”