[[link removed]]

REPUBLICAN TAX BILL COULD SLAP ‘TERRORISM’ LABEL ON NON-PROFITS
OPPOSED TO TRUMP  
[[link removed]]


 

Chris Stein
May 14, 2025
The Guardian
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Fears sparked that Trump would wield law against groups that file
lawsuits or organize voters against his policies _

The provision has been described as a ‘a five-alarm fire for
non-profits nationwide’ who fear Trump will use it to punish his
enemies. , Photograph: Brian Snyder/Reuters

 

Non-profit groups are sounding the alarm over an attempt by Republican
lawmakers to insert a provision allowing the government to cancel the
tax-exempt status of organizations it deems “terrorist supporting”
in a massive bill under negotiation in the House of Representatives
[[link removed]].

The provision’s potential inclusion in the spending and taxation
legislation that Donald Trump
[[link removed]] and his allies
refer to as “one big, beautiful bill
[[link removed]]”
has sparked fears that the administration will wield it against groups
who file lawsuits or organize voters against his policies.

Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at tech policy
non-profit Fight for the Future, described the provision as “a
five-alarm fire for non-profits nationwide”.

“Any organization with goals that do not line up with Maga can be
destroyed with a wink from Trump to the treasury”, likely those that
oppose his policies towards Israel, or advocate for causes like racial
justice and the environment, they said.

Trump had made plain his desire for revenge against his enemies, and
since taking office has sought to deport foreign students
[[link removed]] who
engaged in pro-Palestinian activism, blacklisted law firms
[[link removed]] who
have worked for his political opponents and backed the arrest of a
county judge
[[link removed]] on
charges of obstructing immigration authorities.

“This provision has nothing to do with keeping Americans safe and
instead is an attack on free speech, the security of our communities,
and the work of non-profit organizations and charities,” said Skye
Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has repeatedly
taken the White House to court over its policies.

“The Trump-Vance administration’s unprecedented onslaught against
Americans’ constitutional rights is unpopular and has failed in
court over and over again. This attempt by the president’s allies in
Congress should be rejected by any lawmaker who values civil
society.”

The legislation is a top priority for Congress’s Republican leaders,
who expect to use the budget reconciliation procedure to overcome
Democratic opposition in the Senate and enact it on a party line vote,
potentially as soon as 4 July.

Many aspects of the bill remain under negotiation in the House, but it
is generally expected to implement a range of Trump’s campaign
promises, including the extension of tax cuts enacted during his first
term, the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, and
temporary relief from taxation of tips, overtime and car loan
interest. To satisfy the president’s demand for stricter border
security and the deportation of all undocumented immigrants, it will
authorize more funding for agencies like Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and the Border Patrol.

The GOP controls the House by a tiny three-vote margin, and
considerable disagreements remain among members over aspects of the
bill. The House speaker, Mike Johnson, and other top Republicans
[[link removed]] have proposed
offsetting its costs by reducing funding to social safety net programs
that pay for food and healthcare for poor and disabled Americans,
sparking unease among some of their moderate members.

Republicans representing districts in states with high taxes, such as
New York, New Jersey and California, are demanding a bigger deduction
for local tax payments, while rightwing fiscal hawks are threatening
to vote against the bill if it does not make deep cuts to government
spending.

There appears to be little in the way of disagreement in the GOP over
the provision targeting non-profits, which is similar to a bill that
the House passed last November
[[link removed]] with
a small amount of Democratic support.

But federal law already includes harsh penalties for terrorist
organizations and their supporters, including loss of tax-exempt
status, and non-profits view the new language as both unnecessary and
questionable at a time when the president has made vengeance a
priority.

“Allowing the secretary of the treasury to unilaterally designate
section 501(c) non-profits as ‘terrorist supporting organizations’
while requiring those organizations to prove their innocence runs
counter to constitutional due process,” Independent Sector and the
Council on Foundations, both organizations that represent the
non-profit sector, said in a statement.

The provision would also give future administrations, of any party, a
new tool to use against their own opponents, Holland, of Fight for the
Future, warned.

“This is a first amendment issue – no president should have the
right to destroy non-profits for no reason,” they said.

_Chris Stein is a senior politics reporter for Guardian US, based in
Washington_

* Non-Profits
[[link removed]]
* Anti-Trump
[[link removed]]
* Terrorists
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]