Members Of Congress Propose Bill To Strip Citizenship From American Terrorism Suspects

WASHINGTON — In an apparent effort to aid President Trump’s discriminatory clamp down on free speech, Republicans on the House Ways & Means Committee have snuck a dangerous anti-dissent bill into their massive, new tax package. This provision, formerly known as H.R. 9495, would grant the executive branch the power to effectively shut down any non-profit organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil liberties groups — by accusing them of “supporting terrorism” and using that accusation to suspend their tax-exempt status without any real due process. It was defeated last year, yet extreme politicians are now trying to resurrect it once again. Mark-up of the tax bill will begin in the House Ways & Means Committee at 2:30 p.m. ET today. The following is a statement from Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union: “We've already seen the Trump administration falsely conflate students protesting in support of Palestinian rights with Hamas, deport immigrants to an El Salvadorian prison without due process, and detain students thousands of miles away from their loved ones for criticizing U.S. foreign policy. It is not a stretch to imagine how this bill could be used to pressure universities to shut down student groups, scare human rights organizations away from working with vulnerable communities, and further stifle dissent in this country. The Ways & Means Committee must strip this provision from the tax bill before it heads to the floor.”

Today, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in support of Democracy for the Arab World Now’s (DAWN) efforts to block an individual sanctioned for violence in the Israeli occupied West Bank from accessing information about DAWN’s advocacy for sanctions against him. The brief argues that various protections, including the First Amendment and reporter’s privilege, bar the court from granting the discovery requested in this case. The brief also emphasizes how such discovery requests, if granted, would put civil society groups at serious risk of irreparable harm and chill their vital advocacy work on human rights and corruption issues. In August 2024, Isaac Levi Pilant was sanctioned by the U.S. government under the West Bank sanctions program, for attacking and forcefully expelling Palestinians from a West Bank settlement. At the time, human rights groups, media outlets, and witnesses had documented Pilant’s alleged role in violent attacks against Palestinians, and DAWN had publicly recommended that the U.S. government impose sanctions on him and others for such violence. The sanctions against Pilant were lifted in January 2025, after President Trump effectively terminated the West Bank sanctions program. Pilant then filed an application against DAWN and its executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, pursuant to a U.S. law that provides a mechanism for foreign litigants to obtain discovery from people and entities in the United States.The application seeks a court order for information related to DAWN’s investigation of Pilant and its sanctions advocacy efforts. Pilant says he seeks the information for use in a possible future defamation case in Israel against an Israeli human rights organization. The brief explains how the U.S. government has established frameworks and processes to encourage nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to share sensitive information that can assist it in more effectively implementing various human rights and corruption sanctions and visa restriction programs. Undermining the protections for NGOs to securely and confidentially share this information would not only impact the ability of the U.S. government to use such tools to hold human rights abusers and corrupt actors accountable, but it would also put NGOs, victims of abuse, and others in civil society in jeopardy by opening them up to retaliation and harassment from people they accuse of human rights violations. “Human rights and corruption sanctions are impactful tools of accountability because they threaten the reputations and financial interests of abusers. Forcing NGOs to share information about their sanctions advocacy would put them at grave risk of violence and retaliation from repressive governments and powerful private individuals,” said Amanda Strayer, Senior Counsel for Accountability at Human Rights First. “U.S. courts should not become a forum for sanctioned actors to harass and seek retribution against civil society groups that advocate for measures to hold them accountable.” The brief also argues that Pilant’s broad discovery request implicates information protected under the First Amendment and the reporter’s privilege, which provide grounds to reject his request under the Section 1782 statute. Supreme Court precedent requires the Court to give weight to the serious First Amendment and policy considerations before granting such a request. In this case, these considerations should result in the Court denying Pilant’s discovery request. “It is the nature of human rights reporting that it often draws the ire of accused human rights violators. But the law is clear that such individuals cannot coopt U.S. courts in an attempt to harass and endanger human rights organizations and the victims of abuses whose stories they safeguard. That’s why this is an easy case, and we hope the court has no trouble concluding that the First Amendment protects DAWN’s rights to free speech and association, and bars enforcement of the meritless request for intrusive discovery,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, Deputy Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “NGOs can play a critical role in providing accountability for human rights abuses, and the Constitution protects them from being forced to reveal certain confidential aspects of that work,” said Bobby Hodgson, assistant legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “DAWN is being targeted by a foreign litigant implicated in serious human rights violations in an effort to weaponize our court system to silence critics. We urge the court to reject these requests and recognize that the discovery process does not create an end run around the First Amendment.”

President Donald Trump's use of the military domestically is dangerous and deeply misguided.

WASHINGTON — Two U.S. human rights advocates are challenging the Trump administration’s executive order imposing sanctions on the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from speaking with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. “The International Criminal Court is where victims of grave human rights violations turn when national legal systems fail to provide justice,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with ACLU’s National Security Project. “Blocking our clients and others like them from doing their human rights work is unconstitutional.” Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who’ve devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities—like the genocide of Myanmar’s Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban—could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. “Because of this order, I’ve been forced to stop helping the ICC investigate horrific crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking,” said Matthew Smith, co-founder and CEO of Fortify Rights. “This Executive Order doesn’t just disrupt our work—it actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors.” Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the executive order forced them to stop working with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. As the lawsuit explains, the First Amendment does not allow the government to impose such sweeping limits on what Americans can say, and to whom they can say it. “Victims of the Taliban’s oppression can’t rely on their own courts for justice. That’s why they turn to the ICC, and why it's so important for me to be able to partner with them in their fight for justice and accountability,” said Akila Radhakrishnan, an international human rights lawyer. “I’m bringing this suit to prevent my own government from punishing me for trying to hold the Taliban accountable for its systematic violence against women and girls from Afghanistan.” The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude—including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC’s founding treaty, known as the “Rome Statute.” As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC’s critical work on a wide range of matters. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the ACLU and ACLU of Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the ACLU sued on behalf of human rights experts who were forced to stop working with the ICC. Our clients withdrew their lawsuit when President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions, but a federal court in a separate suit agreed the sanctions likely violated the First Amendment.