Last week, the House of Representatives passed a dangerous bill–HR 9495– that would allow the Treasury Department to shut down nonprofit organizations that it believes are funding terrorism. Initially, it had strong bipartisan support, but after Trump won the election, most Democrats turned against the bill, realizing that Trump could use it to silence his critics. In a recent vote, 15 Democrats voted for it.
Trump could use this authority to shut down the ACLU or any other organization that criticizes him.
Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose this horrible bill!
A BILL THAT would give President-elect Donald Trump broad powers to target his political foes has passed a major hurdle toward becoming law.
The House of Representatives on Thursday passed the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act in a 219-184 vote largely along party lines, with 15 Democrats joining the Republican majority.
The bill, also known as H.R. 9495, would empower the Treasury secretary to unilaterally designate any nonprofit as a “terrorist supporting organization” and revoke its tax-exempt status, effectively killing the group. Critics say the proposal would give presidential administrations a tool to crack down on organizations for political ends.
The provision previously enjoyed bipartisan backing but steadily lost Democratic support in the aftermath of Trump’s election earlier this month. On Thursday, a stream of Democrats stood up to argue against the bill in a heated debate with its Republican supporters.
“Authoritarianism is not born overnight — it creeps in,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said Thursday on the House floor. “A tyrant tightens his grip not just by seizing power, but when he demands new powers and when those who can stop him willingly cede and bend to his will….”
A previous bill with the provision was initially introduced in November 2023, in the early days of Israel’s U.S.-funded devastation of Gaza, with the ostensible goal of blocking U.S.-based nonprofits from supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and other supporters of the bill touted it as a tool to crack down on pro-Palestine groups they claim exploit tax laws to bolster Hamas and fuel antisemitism…
It is already illegal for nonprofits or anyone else in the U.S. to provide material support to terrorist groups, and the federal government has means to enforce it, including prosecution and sanctions. Tenney’s bill, however, would sidestep due process.
The bill includes some guardrails to ensure due process, but much of the language is vague on specifics, and critics fear that even if a group were to successfully appeal their designation, few nonprofit organizations would survive the legal costs and the black mark on their reputation.
Democratic Flips
While a previous version of the bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support and passed 382-11 in a House vote in April, many Democrats have withdrawn their support, citing a fear that the incoming Trump administration could weaponize the bill.
“The road to fascism is paved with a million little votes that slowly erode our democracy and make it easier to go after anyone who disagrees with the government,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., on the House floor Tuesday. “Donald Trump says you’re a terrorist, so you’re a terrorist. My friends on the other side of the aisle know it’s nuts, even if they don’t want to admit it.”
The GOP majority in the House made an initial attempt to pass the bill last week under a suspension of the rules, a parliamentary procedure that requires a two-thirds supermajority to pass. That effort foundered on November 12, when 144 Democrats and one Republican came out against the bill, just barely meeting the threshold to block it…
Despite a majority of Democrats coming out against it in last week’s vote, the bill still received the support of 52 Democrats on November 12. On Thursday, that number dwindled to 15, as Democrats flipped in opposition, including Reps. Angie Craig, D-Minn., and Gabe Vasquez, D-N.M., both of whom cited Trump’s increasingly unhinged cabinet selections in their statements prior to the vote.

This is a dangerous bill with potential democracy crushing implications if it becomes a law that falls into Trump’s authoritarian hands. Why any self-respecting Democrat would vote to cede such potentially harmful power to the Trump administration is beyond my comprehension. It is a license for witch-hunts against liberal leaning organizations.
LikeLike
And possibly dangerous for those who donated to those organizations.
LikeLike
Yes. Planned Parenthood. Any nonprofit that fights for civil liberties, abortion rights, etc. could be shut down by Trump.
LikeLike
Well this is scary. Both of my senators, neither of whom I voted for, are MAGA, so I don’t expect much. But I can send a tailored letter to them anyway just as I did (at the NPE’s prompting) about Linda McMahon.
I’m starting to find nihilism therapeutic (not that it matters).
LikeLike
DESERVING OF REPEATING:
“Authoritarianism is not born overnight — it creeps in,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said Thursday on the House floor. “A tyrant tightens his grip not just by seizing power, but when he demands new powers and when those who can stop him willingly cede and bend to his will….”
A case in point: The scholar Ornstein pointed out that the Trump people are going after the “Budget & Impoundment Control Act of 1974” which is supposed to keep the powers that be, e.g., the executive branch, from appropriating (stealing) Congressional monies (public funding) that are approved for one program already, and “giving” the money (arbitrarily) to fund another program, e.g., whatever Trump wants.
Write or call your Congresspersons while it still might matter? CBK
LikeLike
Retired: The best I can say about that “why” is that the habit of trust dies hard. CBK
LikeLike
WARNIHNG: First, one has to apply the “Orwellian Standard” to the title (of anything) and then the language of whatever bill is introduced by Trump supporting betrayers of the U.S. Constitution, e.g., put on your Orwellian “code-reading” glasses. CBK
LikeLike
That is: WARNING. . . . CBK
LikeLike
And the Orbanization of America begins.
LikeLike
It’s been going on since well before Orban came onto the scene. The xtian nationalist theocrats have been at this since the 70s.
LikeLike
true that. Especially with the advent of Falwell’s moral majority, the acceleration of anti-Jesus political groups usurping Christianity with political agendas counter to freedom has accelerated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The disingenuous conflation of criticism of Israel and Zionism drove the first vote. Citizens organizing drove the Democratic flips. That is what will continue to be vital to forestall Democratic complicity with Trump’s agenda.
LikeLike
The Dims will be there hand in hand with the tRump cultistas.
LikeLike
Puffy King Trump wags his tiny finger and proclaims you support terrorism and *poof* you support terrorism and get treated as such. Still bizarre that so many lionize this cluster-b circus freak. A similar strongman right-winger just got into power in Romania whose Russia-backed flame throwing on TikTok catapulted him from zero to the presidency. Social media has replaced “the news” and the billionaires who control the algorithms that now form public opinion now determine political power. This is why Musk has become the pesky First Buddy. Go into incognito mode in Youtube and watch how quickly the suggestions start pushing right-wing agit-prop your way. The “Idiocracy” has arrived with a crash and and a bang and a dash of “Brave New World”.
LikeLike
Frightening.
LikeLike
THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE: THE TOOL TO STOP TRUMP FROM ISSUING “EXECUTIVE ORDERS” and “NATIONAL EMERGENCY” DECLARATIONS TO SEIZE POWER:
Trump had stated that on his first day back in The White House he will issue a blizzard of Executive Orders and National Emergency declarations to take control of nearly every aspect of our government.
The tool to stop him is the Nondelegation Doctrine that is based on Article 1, Section 1, of our Constitution. Here’s how:
THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE
Article I, Section 1, states: “ALL [emphasis added] legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
What that flatly, unequivocally means is the ONLY CONGRESS has the constitutional authority to create laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in “Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha” that the clear intent of our Constitution is that laws are to be written by our nation’s bicameral Congress, not by some other entity, including the Executive Branch.
In that ruling, the Court pointed out our Founding Fathers’ intent by reserving ALL legislative power to our bicameral Congress was to erect constitutionally enduring checks on each Branch and to protect The People from the improvident exercise of power by the Executive Branch and by governmental agencies.
The Court ruled that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional lawmaking role and duty to a President or to any other agent, unless there is a valid sudden, unanticipated emergency, and that is not the case with situations such as the U.S./Mexico border situation and the illegal immigrant situation, or with other situations for which Trump has said that he will issue Executive Orders and declarations under the National Emergency Act.
SLOWNESS IS NOT A REASON
The Court also stated in Chadha that the slow, deliberate pace of legislation in Congress does not constitute a reason for Congress to delegate away its legislative responsibility: The Court declared that “There is no support in the Constitution or decisions of this Court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit constitutional standards may be avoided, either by the Congress or by the President. With all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.”
Because issues like the U.S./Mexico border situation and the presence of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are issues that EVOLVED OVER DECADES of inaction by Congress, these issues do not constitute “sudden, unanticipated emergencies” and therefore cannot be addressed by presidential declarations of “national emergencies”. It is the SOLE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS and Congress’s constitutional duty to address these issues by legislation.
Nor can Congress delegate its authority to special agents, such as the proposed “Department of Government Efficiency” because as the Court also pointed out in Chadra: “[T]he fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives — or the hallmarks — of democratic government.”
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Trump has stated that on his first day back in The White House, he will issue a blizzard of Executive Orders to take charge and change things his way. But — the same nondelegation-based argument can be brought in court against Trump’s Executive Orders.
The United States Constitution does not contain any provision that explicitly permits the use of Executive Orders. Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution simply states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Sections 2 and 3 describe the various powers and duties of the president, including “He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. That’s what the Executive Branch is charged with doing by the Constitution: Carrying out the laws made by Congress, not overriding those laws.
In fact, the act issuing an Executive Order to override laws passed by Congress is a breach of the presidential oath of office to uphold and defend the laws of the United States.
So, while the Constitution explicitly states in Article 1, Section 1, that ALL legislative power resides with Congress, the Constitution only IMPLIES that the President has the authority to issue Executive Orders, and even that implication is limited to orders from the President to his cabinet departments to “faithfully execute” the laws made by Congress, not to override or to circumvent them.
Executive Orders that carry the weight of law are therefore unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns solely to Congress the authority to make law.
Moreover, if the President issues Executive Orders that interfere with or override the laws made by Congress, that is a breach of the President’s oath of office.
THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY ACT
Trump also plans to issue declarations based on the National Emergency Act to basically make law that suits him. The same Nondelegation Doctrine can stop him. Here’s how:
The 2011 “National Emergency Powers” report by the Congressional Research Service regarding the National Emergency Act lists the essential elements of an emergency condition:
An emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and of unknown duration.
An emergency is dangerous and threatening to life and well-being.
An emergency requires immediate action because it was unanticipated.
Do issues such as the U.S./Mexico border situation and the presence of illegal immigrants in the U.S. qualify as “emergencies”?
So, the situation at the border does not constitute an unforeseen, unanticipated “emergency”. The situation at the border can be dealt with by normal passage of laws by Congress.
So, neither the border situation nor the illegal immigrant situation meet the criteria for being “emergencies”.
Moreover, since National Emergency declarations carry the weight of law, they, too, violate the Nondelegation Doctrine.
STOP TRUMP!
LikeLike