By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a public argument at their hotel, Hegseth’s behavior escalated, leading to Doe’s report of sexual assault. Doe alleges that after her memory became impaired, Hegseth prevented her from leaving a room and subsequently assaulted her. She reported subsequently experiencing nightmares and memory loss. Hegseth denied being intoxicated, while Doe suspects her drink was spiked.
Read the original article here
Fifteen Democrats voted to pass H.R. 9495, the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act,” a bill granting the Treasury Secretary sweeping new powers. This power allows the Secretary to revoke the tax-exempt status of any non-profit organization deemed a supporter of terrorism, a designation made without judicial oversight. This raises serious concerns about potential misuse and the chilling effect on free speech and dissent.
The bill’s passage, with bipartisan support, is deeply troubling. While Republicans largely backed the legislation, the fifteen Democrats who joined them face significant criticism for potentially empowering an authoritarian expansion of executive power. This concern is amplified by the upcoming Trump administration, raising fears that the bill could be weaponized against liberal nonprofits, universities, and news outlets deemed critical of the administration.
The lack of judicial oversight in determining which organizations are labeled as “terrorist-supporting” is a key point of contention. This effectively grants the Treasury Secretary, a presidential appointee, unchecked power to silence dissenting voices and organizations without due process. This significant expansion of executive power raises serious questions about the rule of law and the balance of powers.
While President Biden is unlikely to sign the bill into law, the possibility of its reintroduction by a future Republican-controlled Congress remains. The votes of these fifteen Democrats will be crucial in determining the bill’s ultimate fate, underscoring the importance of holding them accountable for their decisions. Their actions highlight a dangerous trend of bipartisanship that allows for an unchecked increase in executive power, regardless of political affiliation.
The potential implications of this legislation extend far beyond the immediate consequences for affected nonprofits. The ability to revoke tax-exempt status without judicial review creates a climate of fear and self-censorship. Organizations may become hesitant to engage in advocacy or criticism for fear of losing their tax-exempt status and the significant financial repercussions that would follow. This has potentially devastating effects on vital non-profit organizations. This could stifle important work across various sectors, from environmental protection to social justice advocacy.
The list of Democrats who voted for the bill includes Colin Allred (Texas), Yadira D. Caraveo (Colorado), Ed Case (Hawaii), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (North Carolina), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Suzanne Marie Lee (Nevada), Jared Moskowitz (Florida), Jimmy Panetta (California), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington), Brad Schneider (Illinois), Tom Suozzi (New York), Norma Torres (California), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida). These representatives now face intense scrutiny from their constituents and the public at large for their role in passing this controversial legislation. The long-term implications of their actions remain to be seen, but the potential for damage to democratic institutions is substantial.
Even if these fifteen Democrats had voted against the bill, it likely would have still passed. This reality doesn’t diminish the severity of their actions, which represent a significant concession to the expansion of potentially oppressive power. The argument that their individual votes were inconsequential ignores the larger political message sent by their support, a message that empowers those seeking to curtail dissent and undermine democratic institutions. They should be held accountable for their decision to give such broad power to the executive branch. A thorough examination is needed of how this bill could be applied in the future and how this precedent could potentially empower future administrations.
The potential for misuse under a Trump administration is a significant cause for alarm. The possibility of targeting specific organizations based on political affiliation is a real and present danger. The silence and complacency of those who stand by as this bill becomes law sends a chilling message. The debate needs to go beyond simple outrage and explore practical strategies for accountability and reform.
The passage of this bill, particularly with the support of these fifteen Democrats, underscores the fragility of democratic institutions and the importance of vigilance against the erosion of democratic principles. Their actions serve as a stark reminder of the need to carefully scrutinize legislation and the potential consequences of seemingly small compromises that can lead to the erosion of crucial freedoms. This incident should serve as a call to action to strengthen checks and balances and ensure that future legislation does not grant such sweeping powers to the executive branch without proper oversight and due process.