The “poison pill” in H.R. 9495 that could hurt progressive nonprofits lies in the expanded authority to terminate the tax-exempt status of “terrorist-supporting organizations.” While the intent appears focused on combating terrorism, the language and implementation could lead to unintended consequences, particularly for nonprofits engaging in politically sensitive or controversial activities. This is why 100’s of leading nonprofits have signed letters opposed (We Oppose H.R.9495 – Council on Foundations | We Oppose H.R. 9495 – Independent Sector ).

How Trump could use H.R. 9495 to hurt the Nonprofit Sector

For Immigration Nonprofits:

Tenuous ties to “open-border” ideologies:

    • Claim: “Certain immigration nonprofits, by advocating for more permissive border policies, inadvertently facilitate the entry of individuals who might have ties to terrorist organizations, thus supporting terrorism.”
    • Flaw: This reasoning relies on a distant, unproven connection between immigration advocacy and terrorism support.

Allegations of “abetting” undocumented immigrants with potential terrorist links:

  • Claim: “By providing aid to undocumented immigrants, these nonprofits might unintentionally assist individuals with undisclosed terrorist affiliations, thereby indirectly supporting terrorism.”
  • Flaw: This assumes a lack of proper screening and vetting processes, which most reputable nonprofits already employ.

Misinterpreting humanitarian work as “material support”:

  • Claim: “Providing food, shelter, or legal assistance to immigrants can be seen as material support for individuals who might have terrorist connections, even if the nonprofit is unaware.”
  • Flaw: This misapplies the concept of material support, which typically requires intentional and knowledge-based assistance to terrorist organizations.

For Public Radio Nonprofits:

Cherry-picked broadcasting of “anti-administration” or “pro-terrorist” content:

  • Claim: “Public radio nonprofits, through their editorial choices, promote a narrative that undermines national security efforts or sympathizes with terrorist ideologies, thereby supporting terrorism.”
  • Flaw: This justification would target freedom of the press and the editorial independence of public radio, ignoring the diversity of content and viewpoints typically presented.

Unfounded accusations of receiving “suspicious” funding:

  • Claim: “Certain public radio nonprofits have received donations from individuals or organizations with potential ties to terrorism, which could be used to disseminate terrorist-supporting content.”
  • Flaw: This relies on unverified, potentially baseless accusations and ignores the transparent funding structures of most public radio nonprofits.

Criticism of “lax” vetting of commentators or guests:

  • Claim: “By not thoroughly vetting all commentators or guests, public radio nonprofits risk providing a platform for individuals with terrorist sympathies, thus indirectly supporting terrorism.”
  • Flaw: This exaggerates the likelihood of such occurrences and disregards the thorough vetting processes typically in place for on-air guests.

What happens if a Nonprofit loses 501 designation?

When a nonprofit loses its tax-exempt status under IRC Section 501(p) due to being designated a terrorist organization, the organization may face significant operational and financial challenges, depending on the federal actions taken.

Read the full article about HR 9495 at Nonprofit News Feed.