Don’t empower Trump to define terrorism

Rümeysa Öztürk never supported terrorism. That’s not even debatable at this point. A federal judge confirmed the government has no evidence to deport the Tufts University graduate student besides her co-authorship of an op-ed opposing the war in Gaza.

The Washington Post has reported that the State Department warned the government before it nabbed her off the street near her home that there was no basis to deport her.

But lack of evidence isn’t stopping the Trump administration’s efforts to deport her or others. So when Congress contemplates granting the same administration further powers to arbitrarily deem its opponents’ conduct “support of terrorism,” alarm bells should sound.

Well, ring-a-ling. Last year’s “nonprofit killer” bill is making a comeback. That’s the bill that would allow the secretary of the treasury to deem nonprofit organizations terrorist supporters and revoke their tax-exempt status, all with little to no due process.

It was buried at the back of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” that passed the House Ways and Means Committee, before being stripped out of the next version of the megabill, likely for procedural reasons. There’s no reason to think it’s gone for good.

Opposing the bill’s next incarnation must be top priority for all defenders of press freedom and the rule of law. The bill was a horrible idea during the Biden administration, when many Democrats pandering to anti-Palestinian donors supported it while knowing full well Trump might be president in a few months. Now it’s downright scary.

We don’t have to speculate about slippery slopes anymore — Trump has already shown what he’ll do if he’s allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to who is a terrorist supporter. Öztürk is still facing deportation proceedings, and Mahmoud Khalil is still in jail in Louisiana despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitting in a court filing that the “terrorism” case against him is solely based on his beliefs — primarily his opposition to the Israel-Gaza war.

He’ll almost certainly demand his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declare any organizations that advocate for or assist Palestinians to be terrorist supporters. That’s practically a given. If Bessent refuses, he’ll find someone who will. But what about protesters? Minor property damage will quickly become a terrorist attack in Trump’s alternative reality — an “invasion!” And the administration has already made clear its intent to target environmental nonprofits.

And then, of course, there are nonprofit media outlets, not to mention press freedom groups like Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF).

Trump’s creativity knows no bounds when it comes to conjuring up frivolous legal theories against news outlets. Just last week, his White House claimed that Business Insider’s parent company engaged in illegal political meddling by reporting on his son’s business entanglements. He has argued that reporting critically about him constitutes “tortious interference” or even election interference — months after the election. The list goes on.

And his own party has already shown him the way. Last year, Sen. Tom Cotton and other Republicans demanded that major news outlets be investigated for terrorism because they bought photographs from freelancers in Gaza (one of whom the Israeli army just assassinated). One letter even threatened charges for merely reporting things officials didn’t like.

Those news outlets were for-profit companies and the threats were under existing laws on material support for terrorism. Cotton and his friends’ antics were mere stunts — those laws require the government to prove its case, and it couldn’t. But the nonprofit killer bill solves that problem when it comes to nonprofit news outlets, by eliminating the government’s burden of proof and the defenses afforded to organizations investigated under current law.

Sure, a nonprofit could challenge the constitutionality of the claims against it — and should win — but that could take years, and the controversy could permanently steer donors away.

Here’s what’s puzzling: This bill could easily backfire on Republicans, but they’re pushing it anyway. It’s one thing for anti-immigrant officials to claim broad powers to deport immigrants like Öztürk and Khalil. But conservatives aren’t anti-nonprofit. They have nonprofits too.

One could easily imagine a future Democratic administration, using powers gifted to it by today’s Republicans, deeming anti-abortion organizations terrorist supporters, or punishing conservative groups because of ties to white supremacists far less tenuous than the alleged ties between Öztürk and Hamas. Pro-Israel groups that associate with illegal West Bank settlers could be targeted in the unlikely event the Democrats nominate a pro-Palestine president.

So why don’t the bill’s proponents care about the obvious “shoe on the other foot” possibility? Is it because they’re just that shortsighted? Maybe. Or perhaps they don’t intend to ever relinquish power, and destroying civil society and the press is one part of that plan.