������Ƶ

A flurry of Cabinet nominations may be capturing headlines, but they’re not the only troubling actions taking place in Washington.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 9495, the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.” While it sounds like a straightforward attempt to protect national security, its sweeping provisions allow the government to unilaterally designate a nonprofit as “terrorist-supporting” and revoke its tax-exempt status without much opportunity to defend itself.

As this legislation heads to the Senate, Hawaii’s House members find themselves divided — a reflection of the bill’s high-stakes implications for both local and national democracy.

The bipartisan origins of and its overwhelming support in earlier votes might suggest it is uncontroversial. In a statement, Congressman Ed Case, who was one of only 15 Democrats to support the bill’s final passage, pointed out that opposition to the bill’s language increased recently as concerns were raised that the next Trump administration would abuse its power. However, Case defended the measure, arguing it includes safeguards against abuse, including independent review, and represents a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

 “Abuse of executive discretion is always a consideration, and especially so with the incoming administration,” Case said. “However, the reality is that designated terrorist organizations utilize many paths in search of funding and that one target is some non-profits. Non-profits identified as providing specific material support to designated terrorist organizations should lose their tax-exempt status as one consequence, as HR 9495 provides.”

On the other hand, Congresswoman Jill Tokuda, who voted no, believes the bill creates too great a risk of administrative overreach and lacks adequate safeguards.

“If we look to history as our teacher, we will see too many instances where social activists, communities of color, and those simply questioning the status quo, have been labeled as terrorists,” Tokuda explained in a text message. “This kind of power in the hands of a President-elect that does not take kindly to those who disagree with him, would send a chilling effect on free speech and democracy that will be felt across the country, including Hawaii.”

In an email, ACLU of Hawaii Policy Director Carrie Ann Shirota said Case’s vote was “deeply disappointing” and echoed Tokuda’s concerns.

According to Shirota, the bill would give the administration, “power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, environmental and civil society groups — by stripping them of their tax-exempt status based on a unilateral accusation of wrongdoing.”

While the ACLU and over a hundred other nonprofit organizations to the measure prior to Trump’s election, that opposition has grown exponentially since Nov. 5. Given his penchant for labelling his dissenters the it’s perfectly reasonable to worry about granting the President-elect this power. But, this bill presents dangers beyond any single administration, according to global humanitarian leaders.

In a , Oxfam America President and CEO Abby Maxman warned, “We have seen bills like this in other countries, and we know what they do: silence criticism and put lifesaving humanitarian operations like Oxfam’s at risk.”

Organizations involved in campus protests regarding Gaza are the most obvious target of the current legislation.

Paul O’Brien, Executive Director at Amnesty International USA, took it a step further.

“This legislation is ripped from a dictator’s playbook and must be voted down,” . “While it offers a façade of due process, this bill is broad, dangerously vague, and offers no protection against abuse.”

Organizations involved in campus protests regarding Gaza are the most obvious target of the current legislation. It is to intentionally provide material support to terrorist groups. Under this legislation, the government could determine that pro-Palestinian organizations are unintentionally supporting Hamas and revoke their tax-exempt status with very little explanation.

That’s just one example. If this bill is enacted, a broad range of civil society organizations could be the subject of IRS investigations. The Episcopal Church and Interfaith Alliance have opposed HR 9495, warning it could be used to target faith-based groups advocating for social justice. Humanitarian aid groups might face investigations for feeding migrants on the border. Nonprofit news organizations like ours could be labelled “terrorist-supporting” simply for . Even with a review process in place, targeted organizations will struggle to fight the decision, finance their appeals, and face reputational harm in the meantime.

It is undisputable that preventing the misuse of nonprofit organizations to fund terrorism is a legitimate goal. However, HR 9495 is not the solution. Concentrating unchecked power in the hands of the Treasury Secretary could become a weapon for political oppression. While progressive organizations and Democrats are raising the alarm today, this should not be a partisan issue.

Historically, conservative and evangelical churches have expressed concern about government overreach threatening religious freedom. During Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, conservative leaders mobilized against perceived threats to their autonomy and encouraged support for Donald Trump. This bill is exactly what conservative Christian organizations have been warning against for years, and they should be at the forefront of the opposition if the Senate moves HR 9495 forward.