Negin
Owliaei & Maya Schenwar
In
the wake of Donald Trump’s election, after a campaign in which Trump threatened
the press, the left and “the enemy within,” 204 Republicans and 15 Democrats in
the House of Representatives decided to hand a gift to his incoming
administration — one that could be used to squash any kind of dissent.
The
dangerous gift, HR 9495, is known as the “nonprofit killer bill” because it
would unilaterally give the Treasury secretary the power to strip the
tax-exempt status from any nonprofit they decide is a “terrorist-supporting
organization,” all without due process for the organization in question.
Truthout
has been covering this legislation in its many iterations since last spring,
when its predecessor, HR 6408, passed the House with overwhelming support but
stalled in the Senate. We’ve also covered the landscape from which this bill
emerged. While the threat of its use under a Donald Trump presidency is
particularly alarming for a broad range of groups, this bill has to be
understood as part of a bipartisan (and transnational) push to stifle the
Palestine solidarity movement.
The
newer version that the House passed on November 21 includes an add-on that
might help move it more quickly through the Senate, postponing tax deadlines
for American citizens detained abroad. While a separate bill to do just that
has already cleared the Senate, a spokesperson for the body’s majority leader,
Sen. Chuck Schumer, told The New York Times that he’s opposed to the nonprofit
portion of the bill. While it likely won’t come up in this legislative session,
Republicans may raise the bill again next year when they hold both bodies of
Congress. A wide coalition of nonprofits was able to persuade some House
Democrats who previously supported the legislation to vote against it this time
around. That coalition will continue to advocate against the bill as it goes
forward.
Regardless
of what happens with this particular piece of legislation, nonprofits,
including independent media, can’t rest easy. The Trump administration, and the
right more broadly, still have plenty of tools at their disposal to attack
organizers. And while Palestine solidarity activists may have a wider target on
their backs, organizers for any causes even remotely associated with the left
should be paying attention.
We
already know what will come next: we can expect to see more racketeering
charges, otherwise known as RICO charges, thrown at organizers — charges
historically used to attack fraudulent money-making schemes from groups like
the Mafia. Immigrants who engage in any kind of activism may be more likely to
see their legal immigration status threatened. Corporations could work with
right-wing interest groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC) to target protesters at “critical infrastructure” sites like weapons
manufacturers. Groups doing any kind of meaningful work, ranging from
investigative journalism to campus protests, may get tied up with frivolous
lawsuits from right-wing actors.
We
can anticipate these alarming steps because we have been watching the slow drip
of repression for years now. These tactics are already being used on members of
the left, whether on the dozens of Stop Cop City organizers indicted under RICO
laws, or on the pro-Palestine protester who had to fight to keep his student
visa, or on the members of the environmental movement who are charged under
ALEC-orchestrated laws for their anti-pipeline protests.
We
also know this because the right is openly telegraphing its next moves for all
of us to see.
The
Heritage Foundation’s Detailed Plan to Criminalize Palestine Solidarity
Members
of the Heritage Foundation, notably the authors of Project 2025, have another
playbook in their back pockets meant to crack down on the movement for
Palestinian liberation. Known as Project Esther, their plan is to create “a
national strategy to combat antisemitism.” Project Esther alleges that the
pro-Palestine movement is part of a global “Hamas Support Network” with
branches that operate as “Hamas Support Organizations,” which puts everyone
from groups like Students for Justice in Palestine to the Open Society
Foundations in their crosshairs. “Whether in the halls of academia or in the
halls of power, HSN supporters and influence targets must be made to feel
extreme discomfort,” the Project Esther authors write. “We will generate that
discomfort.”
They
go on to suggest public relations campaigns against such groups, as well as
legal attacks that draw on RICO and counterterrorism laws to take out the
movement. The goal is to “organize and focus a broad coalition of willing and
able partners to leverage existing — and, if required, work to establish
additional — authorities, resources, capabilities, and activities.”
As
Dima Khalidi writes in Jewish Voice for Peace’s anthology, On Antisemitism,
“The most prevalent tactic to intimidate advocates for Palestinian rights into
silence is still to falsely accuse individuals, groups, and the movement for
Palestinian rights as a whole of being motivated by antisemitism and support
for terrorism. It’s no coincidence that the tactics overlap, and go hand in
hand. It is, after all, much easier to sow the idea that those who promote
Palestinian rights are antisemitic if they are also depicted as pro-terrorist.”
The
Capital Research Center’s Plan to Criminalize the Left More Broadly
In
yet another blueprint for repression, another right-wing think tank, the
Capital Research Center — whose founder also had ties to The Heritage
Foundation — goes even further in depicting a wide variety of progressive
activists, organizers and the groups that support them as “pro-terrorist.”
The
think tank’s 150-page document, titled “Marching Toward Violence: The Domestic
Anti-Israeli Protest Movement” lays out a multistep plan for targeting a wide
variety of progressive and left groups – including everything from Black Lives
Matter to the Democratic Socialists of America, legal defense organizations
like the Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild, and
many others including Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for
Peace.
While
the plan purports to focus narrowly on pro-Palestine organizing, it effectively
lays out a method by which the right could attempt to use statements made on
Palestine by a broad swath of groups to forcibly halt progressive organizing
and resistance in the U.S. The fact that the Capital Research Center sprinkles
a few white supremacist right-wing actors within its suggested list of targets
should not distract us from the reality of its overwhelming focus on shutting
down organs of the left.
The
plan proposes to target the groups in its crosshairs with a wide array of
attacks, ranging from stripping organizations of their nonprofit status, to
filing RICO charges, to deporting immigrants who protest, to filing
class-action lawsuits against groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.
The document creates a list of 159 organizations to target by explicitly naming
them as “pro-terrorism” based on bunk “documentable evidence.”
This
kind of language is likely not too surprising for anyone familiar with the
tactics used, both by the right and by the state, under the so-called “War on
Terror.” Indeed, its author, Ryan Mauro, is a known figure in the anti-Muslim
movement and formerly worked at the Clarion Project, a right-wing initiative
fueling wildly Islamophobic conspiracy theories, including an infamous debunked
one on Muslim “no-go zones” so extreme that the Southern Poverty Law Center
took note. The organization itself features members on its staff and board that
came from the George W. Bush administration as well as the Reagan one, and a
former Heritage Foundation fellow as well.
While
these playbooks certainly are scarier in the hands of a Trump administration,
it’s important to contextualize them in the larger movement from the right that
spans back decades – one that has had its sights on Muslim and Arab communities
in particular.
Even
for those familiar with these types of threats, there are still some points in
the document from the Capital Research Center that might be helpful to think on
as we prepare for the years ahead. One thing to consider is the breadth of
“research”: the document has more than 700 footnotes documenting everything
from action alerts to articles to a truly disturbing number of social media
posts.
It
also boxes its targets into two categories — one is the “Islamists,
communists/Marxists, and anarchists” — which we might take to mean the left.
But interestingly enough, it also mentions white supremacists as potential
targets — putting Nick Fuentes and the hate group Patriot Front side by side
with organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, which draws quite a bit of the
author’s ire, along with Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims
for Palestine. This kind of calculation on the part of the author is useful for
us to note when some liberal groups suggest switching the focus of terrorism
laws and rhetoric to include the amorphous right-wing “domestic terrorism” in
their scope, a tactic that can only boomerang back to hurt the left.
What
might be most concerning is how this document tries to ensnare a broad range of
actors. The document makes connections with groups centered around abolition,
racial justice and the environment, in addition to the Palestine liberation
movement. In what could be considered laughable if it weren’t so scary, the
author has come up with four overlapping circles of the “pro-terrorism,
anti-Israel movement,” which range from “political warfare” at the widest to
“domestic terrorists” at the narrowest, with “supporters” and “inciters” in
between.
To
give a more concrete sense of how these are applied, the think tank
outrageously lists the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center (also
known as Indybay) under the header of “domestic terrorists,” accuses Black
Lives Matter Grassroots of being “inciters,” lists the Center for
Constitutional Rights under “supporters” and charges the Democratic Socialists
of America with “political warfare.”
The
blueprint for repression takes aim at everyone from fiscal sponsors to,
crucially, the legal support organizations that usually come in to provide
support once activists are targeted. It is clear that the authors of these
types of playbooks are trying to take down the entire ecosystem of the left.
We
must acknowledge the stakes of these attacks: Most progressive and leftist
nonprofit organizations are overwhelmingly supported by foundations and large
donors who require tax-deductibility as a precursor to granting funds. For
most, losing nonprofit status could easily mean a quick death.
As
problematic and imperfect as the nonprofit apparatus is — we deeply appreciate
critiques of the nonprofit industrial complex — the difficult truth is that
most medium-to-large left and progressive organizations rely on it.
When
Left Groups’ Material Survival Is Threatened, What Can We Do in Response?
So,
how can we resist, in the face of this existential threat amid widening
repression?
First
of all, self-education is key. Right-wingers are drawing upon history to
formulate their playbook, which carries echoes of prior fascist movements, as
well as, in the case of organizational targeting, the PATRIOT Act era and the
Red Scare. We must read up, too!
Let’s
form study groups and involve our nonprofit organizations in conversations
about past instances of institutional targeting and histories of resistance.
For example, during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s, the McCarran
Internal Security Act allowed the attorney general to petition a “control
board” to designate organizations as Communist and then require them to
register with the Justice Department. The organizations resisted
straightforwardly: None of the 25 groups labeled as Communist actually
submitted to register with the Justice Department.
During
the post-9/11 Patriot Act period, the federal government targeted several
Muslim nonprofits, including the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim
charity in the U.S. It accused these nonprofits of providing “material support”
for terrorism and froze their assets, leading to shutdowns. Several of the
organizations’ leaders were targeted and imprisoned. In response, organizations
like the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the asset freezes in court,
and a wide range of human rights groups protested, issued statements, and
launched campaigns and petitions. The Committee to Stop FBI Repression was
formed to push back on the targeting of activists accused of links to
“terrorist” organizations.
These
asset freezes and shutdowns, as well as resistance efforts, are reminders of
the importance of building connections with aligned advocacy groups and legal
aid organizations in the current moment (although, frighteningly, the right
currently seems intent on targeting legal defense groups alongside grassroots
activist efforts).
The
looming threats to left and progressive nonprofits may also pose a stark
challenge to philanthropy in the coming months and years. That sector may need
to shift its standard modes of operation to forestall mass chaos among left and
progressive organizations.
Will
foundations and major donors, which have relied on tax-deductible 501(c)(3)
status as a condition for funding, rise to the moment by breaking with their
long-held set of rules? Will they forego the 501(c)(3) requirement in cases
where that requirement is weaponized by fascist powers? Or will organizations
stripped of their status be simply left to die?
In
the weeks prior to inauguration, will foundations help grassroots organizations
build financial reserves to allow for flexibility in the face of legal and
economic threats? Moreover, how will funders respond if nonprofit
organizations’ assets are frozen and they’re suddenly left without the cash
flow to pay out staff severance, let alone operate?
These
are all questions that philanthropic organizations and individual
philanthropists might consider contending with now, before the worst
consequences descend.
The
material survival of the grassroots and nonprofit groups being targeted will
also hinge on the degree to which masses of individuals can rally grassroots
support to buoy organizations that are targeted by baseless right-wing smear
campaigns under the guise of “antiterrorism.” If a host of nonprofit
organizations – including both smaller local groups and major mainstays of the
national progressive activism infrastructure – suddenly lose their nonprofit
status or face legal attack, will masses of supporters be able to mobilize
sufficient grassroots support to sustain them?
We
Need Strong Coalitions to Resist This Attack on the Left
Going
forward, our next steps must include a recognition that liberation movements
are often impacted by periods of significant repression, which often includes
extreme surveillance, dismantlement of core institutions, and criminalization
of individual activists.
We’ve
witnessed this over the past half-century with the movements for labor and
economic justice, Black, Puerto Rican, Chicanx and Indigenous liberation; peace
and anti-imperialism; environmental justice and animal liberation; civil
liberties; racial justice and police abolition; and of course, Palestinian
liberation.
Such
repression requires us to build strong links with other targeted groups —
recognizing repression as a common denominator that can unite us in the
struggle against authoritarianism. As historian Dan Berger writes in The
Struggle Within, “The ubiquity of state repression affords an opportunity to
forge solidarity among multiple revolutionary movements. Seizing this
opportunity does not mean ignoring contradictions. … Instead, it offers a
chance for people committed to radical social change to work with one another,
addressing differences in ways that build alliances and strengthen the
potential for revolutionary possibilities.”
How
can nonprofits from across multiple issue areas and multiple ends of the
left/progressive tent find common ground in our real fears that our
organizations will be shut down, our assets frozen, our bank access curtailed,
and our work cut short at a time when it’s needed most? Working toward broader
and deeper coalitions with similarly threatened organizations will be vital.
In
the movement journalism world, we’ve been laying that groundwork over the past
year with our recently launched Movement Media Alliance, a coalition of 18
social justice-driven media organizations committed to supporting each other’s
sustainability and defending each other in the face of existential threats.
Many progressive and left organizations, more broadly, have been working to
find common purpose since the election of Trump; for example, two days after
the election, the Working Families Party hosted a mass call sponsored by 200
organizations — a rare coming-together moment that could form a seed for
emerging solidarities as groups’ organizational infrastructure is endangered.
Real
efforts at coalition-building — resisting competition in favor of mutual uplift
efforts — could serve to mitigate the secondary impacts of organizations being
baselessly and instrumentally designated as “terrorist-supporting.” For
example, if an organization is federally designated as “terrorist-supporting,”
peer organizations could sound the alarm about the false allegations and affirm
the accused group’s positive impact and importance to the social justice
ecosystem so that donors and allies are less likely to back away.
Meanwhile,
all of us in — and proximate to — the nonprofit world would do well to wrestle
with the potential implications of a mounting direct attack on our
organizations and our people. How can we be nimble? How can we lean on each
other? How can we fight back? Let’s get together and talk about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment