In a significant turn of events, the contentious “nonprofit killer” provision has been removed from the latest draft of a sweeping legislative package known as the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.” This development marks a temporary victory for civil society advocates who have long viewed the measure as a potential threat to free speech and nonprofit organizations, particularly those supporting pro-Palestine initiatives.
The provision, which would have granted the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits by designating them as “terrorist supporting organizations,” has been a point of contention since its introduction in late 2023. Critics argued that it lacked due process and evidentiary standards, raising serious concerns about its implications for free expression and the operational viability of numerous nonprofits. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups have been vocal in their opposition, framing the clause as an assault on civil liberties.
The recent removal of this provision from the bill’s text has sparked cautious optimism among advocates. Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel for the ACLU, expressed relief at the change, stating, “For now it’s not in the text of the bill, and that’s an improvement from where we were at last week.” However, he cautioned that the removal could be a strategic pause rather than a permanent defeat, suggesting that the provision might be reintroduced in a different form as the legislative process unfolds.
The journey of this bill has been fraught with political maneuvering. Initially, it garnered bipartisan support, passing through the House with overwhelming votes from both sides. Yet, as political dynamics shifted—especially following Donald Trump’s reelection—many Democrats began to reassess their positions. The ACLU and other civil rights organizations mounted a concerted campaign against the measure, which ultimately led to a notable shift in sentiment among lawmakers.
Despite the setback for proponents of the nonprofit provision, the legislative landscape remains volatile. The bill recently passed the House Budget Committee, overcoming initial resistance from far-right Republicans who sought to block it due to concerns over government spending. The removal of the nonprofit clause was reportedly a strategic decision influenced by feedback from various stakeholders, indicating that the GOP is navigating a complex political environment where intra-party divisions and public opinion are at play.
The ongoing saga of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between legislative ambition and the protection of civil liberties. As Hamadanchy noted, “We are continuing to track things, in case this thing comes back from the dead as it has numerous times.” This vigilance underscores the importance of civic engagement and advocacy in shaping policy outcomes, particularly in an era where the stakes for free speech and nonprofit operations are increasingly high.
In conclusion, while the removal of the “nonprofit killer” provision is a welcome development for many, the fight for civil liberties is far from over. Stakeholders must remain alert and engaged as the legislative process unfolds, ensuring that the rights of nonprofits and the communities they serve are safeguarded against potential overreach. As history has shown, the battle for free expression is often a long and winding road, requiring persistent advocacy and vigilance.
