Rewrite
The US Congress has just passed a new bill called H.R. 9495 which will grant the federal government the power to designate non-profits as “terrorist-supporting organisations”, without providing any supporting evidence, and strip them of their tax-exempt status. This is liable to impact art galleries, museums and other cultural organisations, as well as activist groups and charities.
According to an open letter published by the American Civil Liberties Union, and signed by a coalition of 150 non-profits, “The potential for abuse under H.R 94595 is immense as the executive branch would be handed a tool it could use to curb free speech, censor nonprofit media outlets, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups across the political spectrum.”
During the debate on the bill on Monday, Jamie Raskin, a Democrat congressman for Maryland, said, “A sixth-grader would know this is unconstitutional. They want us to vote to give the president Orwellian powers and the not-for-profit sector Kafkaesque nightmares.”
“H.R. 9495 is ripped from a dictator’s playbook. While it offers a façade of due process, this bill is broad, dangerously vague, and offers no protection against abuse. Members of Congress must not let it get further,” Paul O Brien, Executive Director of Amnesty International UK, said in a statement after the bill passed on Wednesday.
Under this bill, the Secretary of the Treasury will have unchecked power to designate US non-profits as “terrorist-supporting”, without being required to disclose their evidence or provide the non-profit with an opportunity to defend itself before an impartial decisionmaker. Even if non-profits can successfully challenge this designation in court, the process could still lead to crippling legal fees and reputational damage, and the existence of the legislation is likely to create a chilling effect, regardless of how frequently it is actually employed.
While critics have pointed out that this new bill could have wide-reaching effects, it comes amid a wider effort to censor and suppress the Palestine movement in the US, and the charge of “terrorist-supporting” is likely to have a particular impact on Palestinian non-profits. Israel has a long history of falsely designating Palestinian human rights groups and civil society organisations as “terrorist organisations”. Under this new law, it is entirely plausible that American non-profits, by working with these groups, could find themselves in legal trouble.
In Gaza, the situation is even more complicated: even before October 7, there was a concerted effort to deter Western non-profits from operating in the region by accusing them of supporting Hamas (which is officially deemed a terrorist organisation in the US, along with the UK and many other countries in the West.) But Hamas is the governing party of Gaza: if your organisation pays a salary to an aid worker and they pay taxes to Hamas, are you then funding Hamas? What about if you’re sending funds to a school, hospital or university which is operated by Hamas – does that also qualify as support? The charge of “supporting terrorism” is extremely ambiguous, and it doesn’t have to mean raising money for weapons. As it stands, Western non-profits already have to jump through hoops to defend themselves from this charge in advance.
It remains to be seen how dramatically this bill will affect the world of art and culture – even though the idea of “terrorist-supporting” is elastic and open to abuse, it might be a stretch to apply it to an exhibition of Palestinian art (supporting cultural organisations in Gaza, on the other hand, could become more challenging). What we do know is that there already exists an intense chilling effect around Palestine in the arts world in the US (and elsewhere): exhibitions have been cancelled or delayed, artworks have been removed, and individual artists have faced stark professional consequences, from harassment campaigns to residency offers being rescinded. The threat of this legislation alone may be enough to make arts institutions even more cautious, risk-averse, and less willing to stand up to the Trump administration as it continues to chip away at the US’s fundamental freedoms.
in HTML format, including tags, to make it appealing and easy to read for Japanese-speaking readers aged 20 to 40 interested in fashion. Organize the content with appropriate headings and subheadings (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6), translating all text, including headings, into Japanese. Retain any existing
tags from
The US Congress has just passed a new bill called H.R. 9495 which will grant the federal government the power to designate non-profits as “terrorist-supporting organisations”, without providing any supporting evidence, and strip them of their tax-exempt status. This is liable to impact art galleries, museums and other cultural organisations, as well as activist groups and charities.
According to an open letter published by the American Civil Liberties Union, and signed by a coalition of 150 non-profits, “The potential for abuse under H.R 94595 is immense as the executive branch would be handed a tool it could use to curb free speech, censor nonprofit media outlets, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups across the political spectrum.”
During the debate on the bill on Monday, Jamie Raskin, a Democrat congressman for Maryland, said, “A sixth-grader would know this is unconstitutional. They want us to vote to give the president Orwellian powers and the not-for-profit sector Kafkaesque nightmares.”
“H.R. 9495 is ripped from a dictator’s playbook. While it offers a façade of due process, this bill is broad, dangerously vague, and offers no protection against abuse. Members of Congress must not let it get further,” Paul O Brien, Executive Director of Amnesty International UK, said in a statement after the bill passed on Wednesday.
Under this bill, the Secretary of the Treasury will have unchecked power to designate US non-profits as “terrorist-supporting”, without being required to disclose their evidence or provide the non-profit with an opportunity to defend itself before an impartial decisionmaker. Even if non-profits can successfully challenge this designation in court, the process could still lead to crippling legal fees and reputational damage, and the existence of the legislation is likely to create a chilling effect, regardless of how frequently it is actually employed.
While critics have pointed out that this new bill could have wide-reaching effects, it comes amid a wider effort to censor and suppress the Palestine movement in the US, and the charge of “terrorist-supporting” is likely to have a particular impact on Palestinian non-profits. Israel has a long history of falsely designating Palestinian human rights groups and civil society organisations as “terrorist organisations”. Under this new law, it is entirely plausible that American non-profits, by working with these groups, could find themselves in legal trouble.
In Gaza, the situation is even more complicated: even before October 7, there was a concerted effort to deter Western non-profits from operating in the region by accusing them of supporting Hamas (which is officially deemed a terrorist organisation in the US, along with the UK and many other countries in the West.) But Hamas is the governing party of Gaza: if your organisation pays a salary to an aid worker and they pay taxes to Hamas, are you then funding Hamas? What about if you’re sending funds to a school, hospital or university which is operated by Hamas – does that also qualify as support? The charge of “supporting terrorism” is extremely ambiguous, and it doesn’t have to mean raising money for weapons. As it stands, Western non-profits already have to jump through hoops to defend themselves from this charge in advance.
It remains to be seen how dramatically this bill will affect the world of art and culture – even though the idea of “terrorist-supporting” is elastic and open to abuse, it might be a stretch to apply it to an exhibition of Palestinian art (supporting cultural organisations in Gaza, on the other hand, could become more challenging). What we do know is that there already exists an intense chilling effect around Palestine in the arts world in the US (and elsewhere): exhibitions have been cancelled or delayed, artworks have been removed, and individual artists have faced stark professional consequences, from harassment campaigns to residency offers being rescinded. The threat of this legislation alone may be enough to make arts institutions even more cautious, risk-averse, and less willing to stand up to the Trump administration as it continues to chip away at the US’s fundamental freedoms.
and integrate them seamlessly into the new content without adding new tags. Ensure the new content is fashion-related, written entirely in Japanese, and approximately 1500 words. Conclude with a “結論” section and a well-formatted “よくある質問” section. Avoid including an introduction or a note explaining the process.
