Take action now: tap here to tell your congressman to vote "No" to HR 9495

H.R. 9495, officially titled the "Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act," has become one of the most hotly debated bills in recent memory. On its surface, the legislation appears to address critical issues: easing tax burdens for Americans held hostage abroad and preventing nonprofit organizations from supporting terrorism. Yet, a deeper look reveals a law that extends far beyond these goals, introducing measures that critics argue are both redundant and dangerously overreaching.

Under existing U.S. law, it is already a crime for nonprofits to provide material support to terrorism. These laws are robust, granting the executive branch considerable authority to investigate and prosecute such cases. H.R. 9495 goes further, critics say, in ways that threaten civil liberties, due process, and the very foundations of the nonprofit sector.

For more, tap here for five questions on HR 9495

At the heart of the controversy is the bill's provision to grant the Secretary of the Treasury the power to unilaterally revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status by designating it as a "terrorist-supporting organization." Unlike current processes, which include clear evidentiary standards and procedural safeguards, H.R. 9495 allows this designation to be made without disclosing evidence or reasoning to the public or the accused organization. Critics warn that this expanded authority lacks transparency and accountability, opening the door to abuse.

Take action now: tap here to tell your congressman to vote "No" to HR 9495

Further exacerbating concerns is the bill's shift in the burden of proof. Once designated, nonprofits would have only 90 days to prove their innocence—a timeline many argue is far too short, especially for smaller organizations with limited resources. This provision effectively diminishes the due process protections that nonprofits currently rely on, leaving them vulnerable to arbitrary or politically motivated accusations.

Adding to these fears is the expedited revocation process outlined in the bill. If passed, the Treasury could swiftly strip an organization of its tax-exempt status based solely on the Secretary's determination, bypassing established safeguards designed to prevent such overreach. Critics argue this undermines the very principle of fairness in law, replacing it with a mechanism ripe for misuse.

For more, tap here for five questions on HR 9495

The language of H.R. 9495 also raises alarms for its potential breadth. Nonprofits involved in advocacy work, particularly those critical of government policies, could find themselves targeted under the bill’s vague definitions. Organizations addressing contentious issues—such as immigration, reproductive rights, or equity—might be disproportionately affected, further chilling dissent in civil society.

Finally, the bill provides nonprofits with limited recourse to challenge such designations. By removing meaningful avenues for appeal, H.R. 9495 leaves organizations vulnerable to unchecked power. Critics emphasize that these provisions are unnecessary, as existing laws already prohibit nonprofit support for terrorism and provide the government with ample tools to address such threats.

Supporters of H.R. 9495 argue that it addresses gaps in the current system, but opponents—including civil liberties groups and nonprofit leaders—see it as a profound threat to democratic principles. They warn that the bill's provisions risk politicizing nonprofit oversight, silencing dissent, and eroding public trust in the nonprofit sector—all while targeting activities that are already illegal. As the House vote approaches, the fate of H.R. 9495 is more than a test of legislation; it is a test of how far government power should go in the name of national security.

Take action now: tap here to tell your congressman to vote "No" to HR 9495

Written with the assistance of ChatGPT.