This Bill Would Give the Treasury Nearly Unlimited Power To Destroy Nonprofits
It supposedly bans financing terrorism, but that's already illegal. It's really a power grab for the secretary of the treasury.

A bipartisan bill would give the secretary of the treasury unilateral power to classify any charity as a terrorist-supporting organization, automatically stripping away its nonprofit status. The bill, H.R. 6408, already passed the House of Representatives in November, and a companion bill, S. 4136, was introduced to the Senate by Sens. John Cornyn (R–Texas) and Angus King (I–Maine) last week.
In theory, the bill is a measure to fight terrorism financing. At least, that's what sponsor Rep. David Kustoff (R–Tenn.) claimed. "I urge the swift passage of this legislation that will significantly diminish the ability of Hamas and other terrorist groups to finance their operations and carry out future attacks," he said in a November statement.
Financing terrorism is already very illegal. Anyone who gives money, goods, or services to a U.S.-designated terrorist organization can be charged with a felony under the Antiterrorism Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And those terrorist organizations are already banned from claiming tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Nine charities have been shut down since 2001 under the law.
The new bill would allow the feds to shut down a charity without an official terrorism designation. It creates a new label called "terrorist-supporting organization" that the secretary of the treasury could slap onto nonprofits, removing their tax exempt status within 90 days. Only the secretary of the treasury could cancel that designation.
In other words, the bill's authors believe that some charities are too dangerous to give tax exemptions to, but not dangerous enough to take to court. Although the label is supposed to apply to supporters of designated terrorist groups, nothing in the law prevents the Department of the Treasury from shutting down any 501(c)(3) nonprofit, from the Red Cross to the Reason Foundation.
"Some observers seem to assume that it is merely about virtue signaling and grandstanding, but careful reading of the text of HR 6408 strongly suggests something much more serious," wrote Lara Friedman in her Foundation for Middle East Peace newsletter. "This would be: enabling a new category of legal harassment of NGOs [non-government organizations], focused in the first instance on those that engage with Palestinians or on Palestinian issues, but also enabling attacks on NGOs working in any sector and on any issues."
Supporters of the bill do seem to have pro-Palestinian student organizations in mind.
"Students for Justice in Palestine rallies are not spontaneous expressions of student dissent," said Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, at a November hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee. He accused students of taking "guidance and support" from American Muslims in Palestine, a 501(c)(3) charity, which bears a "striking resemblance to the Hamas charities that were dismantled here more than a decade ago."
Those vague, indirect connections have not been nearly enough to punish Students for Justice in Palestine legally. That month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Students for Justice in Palestine of supporting Hamas and ordered its Florida chapter shut down. As soon as Florida authorities faced a lawsuit, they quickly walked back DeSantis' order.
Under the proposed bill, murky innuendo could be enough to target pro-Palestinian groups. But it likely wouldn't stop there. After all, during the Obama administration, the IRS put aggressive extra scrutiny on nonprofit groups with "Tea Party" or "patriot" in their names. And under the Biden administration, the FBI issued a memo on the potential terrorist threat that right-wing Catholics pose.
The Charity and Security Network, a coalition of charities that operate in conflict zones, warned that its own members could be hindered from helping the neediest people in the world.
"Charitable organizations, especially those who work in settings where designated terrorist groups operate, already undergo strict internal due diligence and risk mitigation measures and…face extra scrutiny by the U.S. government, the financial sector, and all actors necessary to operate and conduct financial transactions in such complex settings," the network declared in November. "This legislation presents dangerous potential as a weapon to be used against civil society in the context of Gaza and beyond."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Students for Justice in Palestine rallies are not spontaneous expressions of student dissent."
With all due respect, what does spontaneity have to do with this? The American Cancer Society has been around for a while, also.
So will this include the UN? It should.
The problem is who defines what organizations support terrorism? I can easily see some Democrats listing the Republican Party as a terrorist organization.
The NRA
Get rid of the democrats. Then getting rid of the RINOs becomes simple.
Wow, an actual appropriate use of the term 'bipartisan'. Haven't seen that in a while.
Republicans: 203-1 (13 abstained)
Democrats: 179-10 (24 abstained)
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024121
That's how you know it's a bad idea.
Yeah, a good compromise is when everyone goes away disappointed.
Not for nothing but does your wife own a phone by chance?
Is it just me or is the NUMBER of unconstitutional power grabs and laws passed by Congress accelerating lately? It's almost like they want to grab as much unconstitutional power as they can before the Federal government goes bankrupt.
It's becoming acceptable and the norm. Individual/private property rights and constitutional limits are so last year. It's a free-for-all and everything's up for grabs.
Or before there is any chance at all any republican might get in any office?
Recent action at the state level doesn't suggest that would increase respect for civil liberties or the rule of law. Quite the contrary.
This case doesn't suggest that either, since precisely one GOP congresscritter voted against his abomination.
Seems to me that it's unconstitutional that some groups have special laws that give them tax breaks.
Especially when so many are just havens for political activism
Can't wait to see who Trump's SecTreas puts on the list.
BLM
All Soros organizations
Etc
So there is a silver lining.
So it's okay to trample civil liberties, as long as you're trampling the right people. Got it.
I notice this is the day where Reason (reluctantly) notices fascism.
I’m not seeing how this would “destroy nonprofits.” It would just remove their nonprofit classification with the IRS, causing their donors to forgo the tax deduction for donations and forcing them to pay taxes like the rest of us (Yes, I’m oversimplifying for the sake of brevity). With the tax laws as they currently stand, it’s only about 14% of taxpayers that itemize their deductions. The other 86% of taxpayers that donate to nonprofits wouldn’t see a difference.
I have a better idea, just do away with the nonprofit status completely instead of gracing favored people/companies/causes with tax breaks.
With roughly 1.97 million non-profit organizations having 10% of all private sector workers and yearly revenues of 2.4 trillion (https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-nonprofits-are-there-in-the-us/), it’s a big chunk of the economy that’s isolated from the taxes they vote for but don’t have to pay. Also, those numbers don’t include the property and sales taxes that the nonprofits are exempt from paying.
We’ll never abolish the income tax, but maybe taxing some of that 2.4 trillion a year could ease the burden on the rest of us.
+1
Reason has a habit of acting as though the term “Nonprofit” is synonymous with “virtue” to people associated with “free minds and free markets”.
Especially with regard to the vague insinuation that your local, rural 100-person tax-exempt Church, St. Helen of the Blessed Shroud Orphanage, or corner soup kitchen is tax-exempt the same way Charles Koch’s Open Borders propaganda machine or Students for Justice in Palestine is tax-exempt.
The only difference between a for profit and a non profit is how much white out they use in their audit books
It will be used selectively to target unfavored political elements while favored elements continue to enjoy the trillions of tax exempt dollars.
Extremist activities today are things like homeschooling, or growing your own food instead of eating government food. There are many nonprofits that support extremist activities. Time to put an end to those and give more billions to the good nonprofits, the ones that fight against this sort of thing.
so is this you guys half-collectively admitting to the tyranny?
Yeah, but before it was happening to those deplorable, insurrection-y people. Not to the fine, upstanding, work-a-day model citizens minding their own business and simply staffing non-profits like The Reason Foundation.
the Jewish one facilitating Hamas entering America is my favorite NGO
Nonprofits are not nonprofit. They are 100% profit. Real corporations have shareholders whom they share profits with. Non-profits keep it all. The only thing they produce is drama. They'll turn anything into a huge political drama. Not to help make things better, but to help themselves make more money. Which is why they don't ever solve any problems.
I am an old school environmentalist, and I have witnessed the old Sierra club go down the tubes in this way. Along with a lot of others. And the media, all of the media not just the left, plays along and dramatizes everything into political theater for the same reason, Profit!
The Sierra Club was a scam from the start. They were partially funded by the Soviet KGB. One of their original tasks was to get us dependent on oil from the Middle East. That way in the event of war the Soviets could cut our supply of oil. That's also why they spent so much time and effort in creating the problems in the Middle East that we still have today.
Frankly, I think the world would be a better place without non-profits and NGOs
Hear, hear!!!
"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
as soon as I saw the title of this article, I knew it was about the pro Haus charities funding the student protest at universities
Of course reason gets all excited about shutting down terrorist adjacent charities
It’s too bad they’re not getting shut down, just losing their tax exempt status.
Terrorist supporting contributors can still donate, they just can’t deduct it on their taxes
"Charitable organizations, especially those who work in settings where designated terrorist groups operate, already undergo strict internal due diligence and risk mitigation measures and…face extra scrutiny by the U.S. government, the financial sector, and all actors necessary to operate and conduct financial transactions in such complex settings,"
To be blunt, this is a bald lie. NGOs have almost zero oversight and many if not most are simply private PR organizations (or worse, private armies) funded by anonymous sources for their own purposes. Whether this legislation is the answer or not, there is certainly a problem.