HR 9495: The Silencing of Voices and the Suppression of Direct Action
Terrorism—a word that evokes images of indiscriminate violence, unrelenting chaos, and the calculated dismantling of peace—has been increasingly misused to frame civil society organizations engaged in necessary interventions against an unscrupulous and avaricious capitalist paradigm. By definition, terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. But what happens when this powerful term, laden with moral judgment and legal consequences, is appropriated to suppress movements striving not for destruction but for redemption— redemption for humanity and the natural world?
HR 9495, titled the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, passed on 11/21/2024 by the House, while framed as a measure to provide tax relief for U.S. citizens detained unlawfully abroad, controversially extends its reach to target civil society organizations through provisions enabling the government to revoke their tax-exempt status if they are accused of supporting "terrorist" activities. The bill's conflation of assisting American hostages with prosecuting nonprofits undermines the integrity of both causes. Providing tax breaks to those wrongfully detained is a humanitarian effort rooted in justice; however, leveraging this legislation to silence organizations opposing systemic injustices often labelled as "eco-terrorists" misuses the language and intent of counterterrorism. Such provisions create a chilling effect on activism, stifling efforts to address environmental and societal crises, and should not be bundled with genuine measures for aiding detained individuals.
This bill presents a deeply troubling question: who decides what constitutes terrorism, and what agendas are served by this decision?
A World of Fear: Who Feels It, and Why?
Nonprofits like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace—organizations that have long acted as the conscience of our collective humanity—are accused of instilling terror. But to whom does their activism bring fear? Is it to the average citizen or to entrenched systems of greed and exploitation that profit from ecological destruction and systemic cruelty?
The answer matters. If these actions evoke fear in corporations and nations flagrantly violating environmental laws or committing acts of unspeakable cruelty, does that fear not serve a just purpose? Is it not a necessary disruption of a status quo that perpetuates harm to the commons—the oceans, forests, and wildlife that belong to no one but sustain everyone?
To call the actions of these organizations terrorism is to strip the word of its moral gravity and wield it as a tool for protecting the interests of extractive industries. It shifts the focus from the profound crises they seek to address—overfishing, whaling, deforestation, and climate change—to the discomfort their tactics create for the powerful.
The Semantics of Terrorism: Who Gets to Define It?
The interpretation of terrorism is not neutral; it is shaped by the biases, agendas, and relationships of those defining it. In the context of HR 9495, the term is weaponized to criminalize dissent and stifle activism. This is a grave injustice, for activism often requires acts of disruption to draw attention to systemic failures.
Does it matter that the fear being “endured” is by entities that defy international laws, exploit resources unsustainably, and profit from the suffering of sentient beings? Should we equate the sabotage of a whaling vessel—a vessel defying international moratoriums on whaling—with the indiscriminate violence of a bomb in a marketplace? The moral equivalence is false and grotesque, yet it is this very conflation that HR 9495 endorses.
Activism in the Age of Crisis: Muting the Voices of Change
The tactics employed by organizations like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace—vigorous opposition, mindful acts of resistance, and civil disobedience—are not driven by malice but by necessity. These groups step into the void left by governments that fail to enforce laws, corporations that exploit without accountability, and societies that too often turn a blind eye. Their actions serve as a critical reminder of our shared responsibility to protect the Earth and its creatures.
Recommended by LinkedIn
The arrests of "Just Stop Oil" activists in September further underscore a deeply troubling trend: those raising urgent alarms about the climate crisis and environmental degradation are being silenced and criminalized, while the offenders—the corporations and industries causing the harm—are handed the reins. Instead of addressing the legitimate concerns of these activists, governments and institutions choose punitive measures, allowing oil companies, whaling vessels, and extractive industries to operate with increasing impunity. These entities, which should face rigorous checks and accountability for their flagrant disregard for humanity and the biosphere, continue to thrive unchecked.
Activists, often risking their safety and freedom, are met with criminalization rather than meaningful engagement, as governments prioritize corporate profits over the health of the planet. Meanwhile, oil companies press forward with unchecked extraction and expansion, breaching planetary boundaries and exacerbating climate injustice. Instead of heeding desperate calls for action, world leaders and policymakers align with industries that perpetuate environmental destruction. This profit-over-people mentality is mirrored in policies like HR9495, which empower the fossil fuel industry to consolidate power at the expense of meaningful climate action and social equity. The suppression of climate activism highlights a systemic failure to address the existential threat of the climate crisis, leaving the world to face mounting consequences while those in power protect short-term economic interests.
If these voices are silenced, what will become of the tragedy of the commons? Who will stand between the harpoon and the whale, the chainsaw and the ancient forest, profit and preservation? HR9495 threatens to stifle those who demand accountability and possess the courage to confront unchecked greed with the urgency it warrants.
The Constitutional and Civil Threat
The bill’s vague definitions of “terrorism-supporting” organizations create a dangerous precedent, allowing executives undue power to unilaterally silence dissenting voices. By enabling the Secretary of the Treasury, an appointee of the President, to strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status without transparent due process, HR 9495 effectively erects a tool of political retribution. This unprecedented authority undermines constitutional protections and shifts the burden of proof onto the accused organizations, granting them merely 90 days to defend themselves against potentially baseless accusations.
The risks are heightened under the current administration, with fears that the legislation could be weaponized to stifle political dissent and target organizations perceived as adversaries. Civil rights advocates, including Rep. Lloyd Doggett, have aptly described it as a “death penalty for nonprofits,” intimidating any group challenging the administration’s worldview. This chilling effect threatens the core of democratic activism and free expression.
The Moral Imperative: Whose Justice?
If the slaughter of whales ceases only when the last whale is gone, if forests fall until there is no canopy left, if rivers are poisoned until they run dry, what will remain of our humanity? Activism is not terrorism; it is an act of love and duty to the planet and its future inhabitants.
The repercussions of this bill extend far beyond environmental groups, posing a threat to civil liberties, independent media, and advocacy organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and over 150 other organizations have raised grave concerns about the bill’s sweeping impact on unsuspecting nonprofits. Silencing these organizations would not only mute necessary opposing narratives but also disrupt efforts to address societal inequities and injustices.
A Call to Conscience
HR 9495 is more than a piece of legislation; it is a test of our values. Will we allow the language of terror to be twisted into a cudgel against those who fight for the voiceless? Or will we stand with the activists, the protectors, the brave few who dare to challenge the systems that imperil us all?
The answer will define us—not as legislators, citizens, or nations, but as stewards of a fragile, interdependent world. Let us choose wisely. In rejecting HR 9495, we safeguard the integrity of our democracy, our civil liberties, and the future of our planet.