The US House of Representatives passed a bill that hold the Treasury Department accountable to eliminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit organization it considers to support terrorism. THE Stop terrorist financing and tax sanctions linked to the American hostage law was approved by 219 votes to 184with all but one Republican supporting it and only 15 Democrats voting for it, on November 21, 2024.

Emily Schwartz Greco, The Conversation US editor for philanthropy and nonprofits, spoke with Beth Gazleyspecialist in nonprofit organizations, local governance and civil society at Indiana University, to better understand the outcry over this measure — which would have to pass the Senate before a U.S. president can sign it into law.

LEARN MORE: Trump names hedge fund founder Scott Bessent as Treasury secretary pick

President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office in January 2025, will begin his second term with a slim majority in both houses of Congress. This means that the same or similar invoice could arrive on his desk after being reintroduced at the next Congress.

Why are so many people worried about this bill?

I think this is part of a strategy to preempt opposition to Republican policies and encourage self-censorship. It’s the Republican Party’s way of trying to restrict what activists and nonprofits can say or do. And, essentially, it’s a threat to President-elect Donald Trump’s political opponents.

This type of law could become a sharp weapon that can be used against everyone.

I’m not the only one who feels this way. US Representative Jamie Raskina Democrat who was previously a professor of constitutional lawcalled the bill a “werewolf in sheep’s clothing.” Raskin observed that “supporting terrorists is already a crime” and warned that this bill could end up “upsetting” all due process rights.

Several nonpartisan groups and associations representing a broad range of nonprofit organizations, including the Council on Foundations, Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofits, and United Philanthropy Forum, issued a joint statement who condemned this measure before its passage in the House. The groups said they feared it would give “the executive branch broad new authority that could be abused.”

What do you think the term “terrorism” means in this context?

An earlier version of this legislation was introduced in December 2023 and passed the House in April 2024. Depending on the timing, it has been widely interpreted as a attempt to quell widespread protests by students and others who expressed solidarity with Palestinians and objections to Israeli military operations in Gaza.

LEARN MORE: University faculty members oppose new campus protest rules

But this legislation could easily do much more than that, because it does not distinguish between foreign and domestic terrorism… if it’s real or imagined.

So far, the Treasury Department has been very careful in how it defines domestic terrorism, observing on its website that the U.S. Constitution and laws “protect a wide range of expression – even expression that many might disagree with or find abhorrent, and even expression that some of the United States’ foreign allies and partners prohibit and criminalize under their own laws.

U.S. law states that the Department of the Treasury has a obligation to remain impartial in each of its interactions with tax-exempt organizations.

As a result, making it easier for federal authorities to claim that a nonprofit organization is “terrorist” would constitute a radical departure from American traditions. This could turn the term into a kind of political rhetoric intended to intimidate activists, including those organizing campus protests.

The absence of a clear definition in the law would leave room for interpretation. It’s not clear who would be held responsible – it could even be the nonprofit’s donors.

Constitutional protections may ultimately protect people who are caught up in these allegations, but there’s no way of knowing how far it might go or how much it might upend their livelihoods while they defend themselves.

What other concerns do you have?

This bill reminds me of what is happening around the world, in countries where support for democratic principles is declining and right-wing governments are restrict dissent.

I am currently working with Jennifer Alexandreprofessor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio, in an article on this trend and its connection to what is already happening in many American states. We have found that this pattern is most prevalent when the Republican Party has complete control over government: The Republican Party occupies the governor’s mansion and has a majority in both legislative chambers.

We found that at least 22 US states have either passed new laws restricting protests or strengthened the laws already in force, thus increasing the severity of possible sanctions. These laws restrict public advocacy and organizing.

I can imagine it being used to suppress environmental protests, like the those organized in Atlanta to oppose the construction of a police training center in an urban forest, or in North Dakotaagainst the construction of an oil pipeline.

This type of measure could lead to more severe repression in the event of a new wave of Black Lives Matter protests, similar to those of 2020 following the murder of George Floyd. Many of these protests were organized by nonprofit groups.

In Texas, state authorities attempted to shut down charities that help immigrantssparking an outcry from civil rights groups.

And Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita launched a survey of businesses and nonprofits, including the God Is Good Foundation, who allegedly conspired to bring non-citizens into the state.

What do you think would happen if this measure became law?

I can imagine that people intending to pursue the type of mass mobilization organized by nonprofits might decide to go underground – to avoid the repercussions of an activity that, in my view, is clearly protected by the United States Constitution.

Even without this measure becoming a law, it became possible for a the organizer will be held responsible in court for damages or injuries suffered during a demonstration, even if they did not personally commit violence or destruction.

Officially labeling an organization “terrorist” can be very powerful. If this were to happen, a portion of the population would never see this group any other way.

Many authoritarian regimes like to use this propaganda tool because it encourages the public to be wary of these organizations. This places these organizations outside of acceptable standards of civic engagement, despite nonprofits’ rights to free speech, assembly, and petition enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

This article is republished from The conversation under Creative Commons license. Read the original article.