H.R. 9495 and the Power of Interactive Storytelling

Exploring Interactive Storytelling and ARGs as Tools for Advocacy and Resistance in a Post-H.R. 9495 World

H.R. 9495, officially titled the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act,” is a bill aimed at dismantling avenues that fund “terrorism”. While a portion of the bill focuses on tax relief for Americans wrongfully detained a broad, we will focus on Section 4, which takes a direct aim that organizations that use their non-profit status to provide support to “terrorist groups”.

It should be noted that since the 1950s, civil rights and social justice organizations have faced accusations of being tied to, or labeled as, “terrorist organizations”. From COINTELPRO’s to H.R. 9495, the United States government has historically swung large when defining “national security” to suppress dissent and neutralize movements challenging the status quo.

While Section 4 of H.R. 9495 claims to focus on combating terrorism, its potential for misuse under any administration is significant, as history shows how such laws have affected marginalized advocacy groups in the past.

---

A (Brief) History of the Surveillance State

COINTELPRO

COINTELPRO (COunter INTELligence PROgram, 1956–1971) was a covert FBI program aimed at disrupting and discrediting civil rights organizations and activist groups deemed “subversive¹.” Through COINTELPRO, the FBI targeted movements fighting for racial justice, sovereignty, and systemic change, using methods that ranged from surveillance to outright violence:

Targets of COINTELPRO included:

1. Feminist Groups: Feminist organizations, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Women’s Liberation Movement.²

2. Socialist and Communist Parties: Socialist and communist groups, including the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party USA.

3. The American Indian Movement (AIM): AIM, which advocated for Native American rights, was heavily targeted by COINTELPRO. The FBI used infiltration, harassment, and misinformation to weaken the organization, particularly during the Wounded Knee incident of 1973.

4. Civil Rights Leaders and Groups: COINTELPRO directly threatened and harassed individuals such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and groups like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

5. Black Nationalist Movements: COINTELPRO was particularly aggressive against Black nationalist movements, including the Black Panther Party. Efforts included surveillance, infiltration, and orchestrating violent confrontations between rival groups, with the aim of neutralizing what it viewed as radical Black power movements.

6. Anti-War Groups: During the Vietnam War era, COINTELPRO targeted anti-war organizations, such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the broader anti-Vietnam War movement, which were critical of U.S. military involvement overseas.

Note, that much like H.R. 9495, COINTELPRO was created for the sake of ‘national security purposes’, which is a phrase that’s been utilized as a nation-wide³ brush stroke for framing any form of dissidence in a negative light. The program’s illegal activities, driven by fear of political dissent and social change, destroyed democratic freedoms and civil rights movements in the United States.

---

What H.R. 9495 (actually) Does

Section 4 of H.R. 9495 focuses on nonprofits suspected of supporting terrorism. It introduces a process to revoke their tax-exempt status if they are found to have provided “material support” to terrorist organizations, as an extension of 18 U.S. Code § 2339B.

How it works:

1. Notification: The Treasury Secretary sends a formal notice to the organization detailing the allegations.

2. 90-Day Response: The organization must either:

   • Prove the allegations are false, or

   • Take corrective action, such as recovering funds and committing to stop future support.

3. Designation: Failure to respond results in an official designation as a “terrorist-supporting organization.”

Consequences:

• Tax-Exempt Status Revoked: The organization loses its nonprofit privileges indefinitely unless the designation is rescinded.

• Appeals Process: Organizations can contest the designation through the IRS Independent Office of Appeals or in federal court. If classified information is involved, courts can review evidence privately to protect national security.

This provision applies only to future designations, ensuring no retroactive penalties.

---

Why I’m Not Scared?!

Funny thing is, I’m scared shitless—but I genuinely believe that as social dissidents, we need to restructure how we organize. If we’re playing a game where the system is rigged against us, we need to change how we support one another in a way that utilizes the loopholes in the system.

Selfishly, my lack of fear is due-in-part of me being a radical for change. I foresee a future of interactivity, where storytelling, and narrative play act as tools for how we organize, mobilize, love, and fight for what we believe in.

We are so quick to disassociate, or ideate from our present-reality into other forms of media that exist in an alternate reality. Whether it’s the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, the Forgotten Realms of Baldur’s Gate 3, or Westeros—we find ourselves absorbed in the lore, the characters, and the atmosphere.

So, who’s to say that as a community—we can’t develop an alternate reality that’s similar, yet different to our own—to the point where our community efforts in the real-world directly shape the history of a fictional universe. Why can’t we create the alternate history we want to live in, as a subset of our real life intention?

Who doesn’t love a little alternate-history, community-based fan-fiction?

If I lost you, what I’m talking about is gamifying socialism, mutual-aid, and community support. I know—you must think I’m crazy, or insensitive; or both. One can’t just turn support into a commodity—one can’t ‘Pokemon Go!’ soup kitchens, donation centers, and resource pop-ups… right? Trust, I’ve wrestled with these criticiasms while conceptualizing this idea of turning social aid into a game:

• Trivializing Issues: Gamification risks creating further disconnection from the real-life problems it seeks to address.

• Transactional Support: Turning mutual aid into a game may reduce acts of compassion into dopamine/reward-chasing.

• Corporate Exploitation: Gamifying mutual aid through an LLC could attract exploitative corporate interests or expose participants to surveillance.

• Resource Misallocation: Emphasizing narrative could divert resources from direct aid efforts.

• Short-Term Excitement: ARGs rely on novelty, which may lead to waning interest and reduced impact over time.

• Ego and Hierarchies: Reward systems or “leaders” could unintentionally create hierarchies, undermining mutual aid’s principles of equality.

• Unequal Rewards: Highlighting certain participants over others risks inequality within the system.

• Creative Demands: Sustaining a game with ongoing stories and tech [potentially] requires significant resources better allocated to direct support.

• Is It Even Necessary?: Adding a fictional narrative might draw interest but could also detract from the primary goal of helping others.

Still, the idea eats away at me: Could this work? Could establishing a fictional layer between reality amplify real-world action? Could an ARG, or ‘Unfiction’ inspire people to think critically, act collectively, and remain engaged with community? Or does this idea risk turning community activism into a fleeting moment of entertainment?

I’m not sure of the answers yet, but I think the idea is worth exploring. If nothing else, we’d be telling a story worth living—and maybe that’s the first step toward real change.

—Aireus

1. Subversive: Trying or likely to destroy or damage a government or political system by attacking it secretly or indirectly. Take into account the historical narrative of the United States’ Government & Political System during the 1950s.

2. Which were advocating for gender equality, reproductive rights, and against systemic sexism.

3. not on your side.