52 House Democrats Urged to Reject GOP-Backed Bill That Could Cripple Nonprofits

House Republicans are reigniting efforts to advance what has been dubbed the “nonprofit killer” bill—a legislative move that would empower U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to impose sanctions on civil society organizations, including watchdog groups, media entities, and humanitarian bodies.

A vote on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495), which could strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits labeled as “terrorist supporting organizations” by the Treasury Department, is slated for Thursday.

However, a broad alliance of entities and individuals has expressed strong opposition to the bill, including several groups that have been actively lobbying House members to reject it, particularly targeting the 52 Democrats who initially supported the legislation.

The bill faced a roadblock last week when 144 Democrats and a single Republican voted it down after it was expedited under a rule requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. Subsequently, Republicans reintroduced the bill via the House Rules Committee, setting the stage for a vote requiring only a simple majority.

Among the 52 Democrats who initially voted for the bill were Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).

Organizations such as Muslims for Progressive Values, Fight for the Future, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and The NewsGuild-CWA have initiated campaigns urging these 52 Democrats to change their votes and encouraging all House members to oppose the bill.

“H.R. 9495 poses a direct threat to our fundamental rights to free speech, dissent, and advocacy. Democrats who profess to stand for democracy must be held accountable for their support of this bill, which would silence nonprofits advocating for a range of causes from Palestinian human rights to reproductive rights and against deportations or any governmental policies,” stated Muslims for Progressive Values.

Some of the Democrats who initially supported the bill have indicated a change of heart and will no longer back it.

Representative Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) issued a statement on Monday, saying, “The feedback from my district has been loud and clear, and the concerns raised by my constituents, nonprofit leaders, and their staff have resonated with me. Given the recent Cabinet appointments by the incoming administration, I am skeptical that this tool would be used as intended. Consequently, I will vote against H.R. 9495 and continue to prioritize the welfare of our district and nation.”

The bill is particularly feared to adversely affect Palestinian rights groups and pro-Palestine advocacy.

“This legislation is crafted to criminalize organizations and activists challenging the U.S.’s unconditional backing of Israeli policies against Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. Such measures threaten the constitutional freedoms of American nonprofits, religious institutions, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Legislators must recognize the profound and lasting harm of pursuing bills or inquiries that suppress legitimate activism and stifle dissent,” declared a collective statement from Arab and Muslim American organizations last week.

Lia Holland, the campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, remarked, “It’s disappointing, though not surprising, to see Democrats endorsing a bill that penalizes student protests against genocide. Time and again, legislative attempts to curb dissent and suppress free expression backfire on those who initiate them.”

“H.R. 9495 is no different—now, every nonprofit, regardless of their focus, is mobilizing in opposition, urging Democrats to reject their narrow interests and spite, and not to grant President-elect Trump the power to dismantle any nonprofit he chooses with a mere signature,” Holland added.

The proposed legislation has also been criticized on broader civil rights and free speech grounds.

“H.R. 9495 lacks any provisions for due process or oversight, making it a perfect tool for political vengeance under the disguise of ‘combating terrorism.’ Trump would likely exploit this authority to target any organization that opposes his policies. The 52 Democrats who initially backed it must reconsider their stance,” wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at the ACLU, expressed concerns about the bill, stating, “Whenever we grant new powers and more authority to the president to act unilaterally, we essentially invite misuse by the executive branch.”

“While the ACLU would oppose this legislation under any administration, the rhetoric of the president-elect on the campaign trail only intensifies the need for Congress to discard this bill,” Hamadanchy concluded.