Beyond Advisers' CEO Scott M. Curran shares his thoughts on the controversy surrounding HR 9495 (aka "The Nonprofit Killer Bill") - a bill designated to combat terrorism but raising deep concerns among nonprofits about potential misuse -with The Legal Intelligencer, a publication of ALM. Read the full article below, where Scott unpacks the balance between national security and nonprofit integrity, highlighting fears of political overreach in an increasingly polarized environment, and explores how the nonprofit sector can remain resilient and united in the face of these challenges.
The 'Nonprofit Killer Bill': SeparatingFear From Fact on HR 9495
By Scott M. Curran
Nonprofits are the backbone of civil society, addressing societal challenges and advancing public good in ways and on issues that are left unaddressed by government and the private sector. The recent evolution of HR 9495 has sent shockwaves through the nonprofit sector, leaving many concerned about its implications for their work, their missions, andtheir very existence. But before we succumb to fear, let’s examine thecontext, the content of the bill, and what is driving the anxiety.
Why Nonprofits Are Alarmed
At its core, HR 9495 proposes to empower the Treasury Secretary to revoke nonprofit status in certain cases in the name of protecting against support of terrorism. The nonprofit industry alarm stems from the risk of this power being misused by a single political appointee—in this case the Treasury Secretary—outside the bill’s original intent.
Many fear this power could be misused to target organizations based on ideology or political alignment, jeopardizing their ability to operate and serve their communities. This anxiety is fueled by the broader political climate, where rhetoric and policy proposals have heightened concerns about the stability and neutrality of nonprofit oversight. Critics worry that the bill could become a tool for targeting nonprofits deemed “enemies”by those in power—a scenario that feels plausible given recent campaign promises.
Looking at the Facts
Let’s take a step back and look at HR 9495 itself. In addition to providing certain tax relief for hostages and others wrongfully detained abroad who missed federal tax deadlines, when first passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee it was met with universal bipartisan support as a tool for addressing another very specific problem: nonprofit organizations being misused to fund terrorism. To mitigate the risks of overreach, the bill includes due process protections throughout, ensuring that decisions are not made arbitrarily or without recourse for affected organizations. For example, the bill includes safeguards like a 90-day notice period, opportunities for response, and judicial review to contest designations. Still, critics fairly note that the mere designation as a “terrorist supporting organization" and the associated defense burden could be enough to mortally wound affected nonprofits.
At the time of its introduction, the bipartisan consensus seemed clear:this legislation was necessary to prevent direct support of terrorism by nonprofits, while also protecting legitimate organizations through specific procedural safeguards. In this sense, the framework of HR 9495 reflects a balance between enforcement and fairness, rooted in principles of justice. But recent excitement about HR 9495 focuses less on this balance and more on risk of overreach and peril without due process.
What Has Changed?
The text of the bill has not changed significantly since its inception. What has changed is the political landscape. The bill is now being discussed in a context where trust in government neutrality is eroding, and partisan rhetoric has raised legitimate concerns about how laws might be applied or misapplied.
In particular, Donald Trump’s campaign promises to root out “the enemy within” have stoked fears that HR 9495 could become a weapon against organizations perceived counter to his agenda. The simple fear is that the definition of what constitutes “terrorism” under the bill will be widely interpreted and maliciously expanded with little hope that the incorporated due process protections will counter such efforts or the public stigma that would unquestionably burden targeted nonprofits.Critics have also drawn parallels between provisions of HR 9495 and laws in authoritarian regimes that suppress civil society and dissent. This fear is compounded by Trump’s pattern of defining dissent as hostility and targeting entities—whether individuals, corporations, or nonprofits—that do not align with his vision.
Balancing Fear and Functionality
It is important to acknowledge these concerns, but it is equally critical to ground our understanding in the facts. HR 9495 initially appears designed with due process in mind, and the intent behind it was to protect national security by thwarting direct funding of terrorism by nonprofits while still preserving the integrity of the nonprofit sector. However, legitimate questions remain about whether this is “a solution without a problem” given that funding terrorism is already illegal, existing laws offer similar protections, and there is little evidence of unaddressed terrorism concerns this law would resolve.
Beyond this, the bill underscores a broader challenge for nonprofits: the need to build resilience in an increasingly polarized environment.Nonprofits must prepare to operate in a climate where their missions, methods, and funding sources could come under heightened scrutiny if not outright attack. This preparation includes robust compliance measures, proactive communication with stakeholders, advocacy to ensure fair and transparent implementation of any policy changes, and accountability among those wielding the powers that new laws provide. Support from lawyers is essential for nonprofits that can afford them. For nonprofits without access to paid counsel, a network of pro bono providers and protective measures will be essential to address potential misuse or abuse of the new law.
The Path Forward
The controversy around HR 9495 reveals less about the bill itself and more about the times we live in—a period marked by division, distrust and the politicization of previously neutral spaces. For nonprofits, this moment is a reminder to remain vigilant, informed and united in defending the sector’s independence and integrity.
HR 9495 is not inherently a threat to nonprofits, but its potential misuse in a politically charged environment has amplified fears. As we navigate these uncertainties, the nonprofit sector must balance caution with action, ensuring that it remains a force for good in an increasingly complex and contentious world.
By understanding the facts, engaging in constructive dialogue, and reinforcing the rule of law that protects systems and processes that work to the benefit of all nonprofits, we can address valid concerns about HR9495 while safeguarding the sector’s vital role in advancing public good.
Scott M. Curran is the CEO of Beyond Advisers. He is a corporate, nonprofit, and social impact lawyer, and the former general counsel of the Clinton Foundation.