On December 8, 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that, effective immediately, his state will formally designate the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as “foreign terrorist organizations.”
Under the new order, Florida state agencies are directed to “undertake all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities by these organizations,” including denying privileges or resources to any individual or organization that provides them material support.
The move echoes — and builds upon — similar actions already taken by other states, most notably Greg Abbott in Texas. In November 2025, Abbott issued a proclamation declaring both the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR to be “foreign terrorist organizations” and “transnational criminal organizations.”
In Texas this designation came with concrete legal consequences: restrictions on land acquisition by the groups or their affiliates, and enhanced enforcement powers against them.
Florida’s decision follows closely on the heels of a recent federal-level development: two weeks earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump had signed an executive order launching a formal review process to determine whether certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTOs) or “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” (SDGTs) by the State Department and Treasury — with a 45-day deadline for assessment.
If federal authorities proceed with such designations, the implications would be far-reaching: sanctions, asset freezes, and severe constraints on the global operations of the affected organizations would likely follow.
Why CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood? — History, Allegations, and Legal Precedents
To understand the significance of Florida’s action, it helps to trace the background of CAIR, its past controversies, and the broader debates surrounding the Muslim Brotherhood’s role — both in the U.S. and globally.
Origins and Purpose of CAIR
CAIR was founded in 1994, based in Washington, D.C., with the stated mission to defend the civil rights of Muslims in the United States, fight discrimination, foster understanding of Islam, and encourage civic participation among American Muslims.
Over the decades, CAIR has established chapters across many states, offering legal support to individuals facing discrimination, advocating for policy changes, and engaging in community outreach.
The 2007–2009 “Holy Land Foundation” Case and Its Fallout
CAIR’s history has been controversial. In 2007, during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) — once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S. — federal prosecutors named CAIR (alongside over 240 other organizations and individuals) as “unindicted co-conspirators or joint venturers.”
The HLF trial ended in a mistrial in 2007, but after a retrial in 2008 the HLF leaders were convicted for funneling millions to the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
Notably, CAIR was never charged in that case; prosecutors did not file criminal charges against it. However, in the wake of the 2008 convictions, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) severed formal ties with CAIR. Officials cited the convictions, plus CAIR’s alleged failure to clarify its links to HLF and Hamas, as the basis for ending cooperation.
CAIR has consistently maintained its innocence. It argues that being named an “unindicted co-conspirator” does not constitute a criminal conviction, and that no evidence supports a finding that CAIR itself engaged in terrorism or illegal activity.
The Broader Debate Around the Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood — founded in Egypt in 1928 — is an Islamist movement that seeks to integrate Islam into political, social, and legal life. While some branches of the Brotherhood have engaged in politics peacefully, its ideological foundations and historical ties to radicalism have long drawn scrutiny.
Critics warn that even non-violent Islamist groups can serve as ideological incubators for radicalization, and view the Brotherhood’s emphasis on political Islam as a potential gateway to extremist movements.
U.S. policymakers have debated how to handle the network of Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in America. Some argue for engaging moderate elements as counterweights to violent jihadist groups; others believe that engagement legitimizes Islamism and poses long-term security risks.
Given the murky boundary between “non-violent Islamist advocacy” and “extremist ideology,” actions like state-level designations seek to draw a hard line — even if the national government hasn’t weighed in.
What Florida’s Designation Means — And What It Doesn’t
The new Florida ruling empowers state agencies to deny resources or support to CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and related entities. It could affect access to government grants, public-sector contracts, social services, and other state-level privileges — depending on how strictly agencies interpret the order.
At the same time, the designation does not mean these groups are now recognized by the U.S. federal government as terrorist organizations. As of now, neither CAIR nor the Muslim Brotherhood holds official federal FTO/SDGT status.
Moreover, since the legal structure in the U.S. reserves for the federal government alone the formal authority to designate organizations as foreign terrorist groups, states’ declarations may face constitutional and legal challenges — particularly under due process, free speech, and equal-protection frameworks. The designation in Texas has already triggered a lawsuit from CAIR, challenging its constitutionality.
In practice, the significance of Florida’s move may depend heavily on how state agencies implement the order, and whether courts ultimately uphold — or block — similar designations.
It also sets an important precedent: state-level action is increasingly being used as a tool to target organizations that have not been federally designated — a trend with potential ripple effects across multiple jurisdictions.
Reactions and Controversy: Security vs. Civil-Rights Debate
Supporters of the designation, including conservative politicians and some security-focused policy advocates, argue it’s a necessary step to combat extremist networks under the guise of civil-rights advocacy. They point to CAIR’s past associations with the HLF case and alleged ideological alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood as justification. This, they claim, demonstrates that certain civil-rights groups may serve as “fronts” for broader Islamist agendas.
However, opponents warn that these moves risk institutionalizing religious discrimination and targeting Muslim-American communities. Critics argue that using state power to label civil-rights or advocacy organizations as “terrorist” without due process — and while federal authorities decline to do so — undermines constitutional protections and civil liberties. Indeed, the ongoing lawsuit in Texas challenges exactly that: labeling CAIR based on political disagreement rather than criminal conviction.
Religious-freedom and civil-liberties advocates also warn of chilling effects. If states can unilaterally declare advocacy groups “terrorist,” then any organization representing a minority — especially a religious minority — could be vulnerable. Robust scrutiny, transparency, and requirement for due process are often raised as necessary safeguards.
Further, long-term impact on U.S. democracy and social cohesion may be at stake: targeting Muslim-American institutions risks alienating entire communities, undermining trust in government, and fueling a cycle of distrust and marginalization — which, some analysts argue, ironically may foster the very radicalization these measures seek to prevent.
What Comes Next: Federal Hearing, Court Battles — and National Precedent
Florida’s designation does not exist in isolation: it comes at a moment of broader national activity. The executive-order launched by President Trump signals that federal authorities may soon weigh in on the question — possibly granting the Muslim Brotherhood or affiliated chapters formal terrorist status at the national level.
If the federal government does move forward, the consequences would be stark: assets could be frozen, international operations curtailed, and membership or affiliation could carry criminal penalties. That would mark a major shift in U.S. strategy toward Islamist movements.
On the other hand, if courts strike down state-level designations — as CAIR’s lawsuit in Texas seeks to do — that could check the growing trend of state-level activism in national security matters. It may force legislatures and courts to define clearer standards for what constitutes a “terrorist organization.”
Finally, regardless of legal outcomes, the reputational impact is already significant. Even absent formal convictions, the stigma of “terrorist organization” labeling can have long-term effects on an organization’s ability to fundraise, recruit, and engage in public advocacy — and could deter individuals from associating with them.
Conclusion
The decision by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to designate CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as “foreign terrorist organizations” represents a bold and controversial assertion of state-level power over national security matters. It reflects growing political will among some U.S. states to bypass federal government in addressing Islamist-linked groups.
While proponents argue the move is a necessary defense against extremist ideology, critics warn it undermines civil liberties, targets religious minorities, and risks setting dangerous precedent. With ongoing federal reviews, court challenges, and heightened public scrutiny, the coming weeks and months may determine whether such state-level designations become a model — or a cautionary tale — for U.S. counterterrorism and civil-rights policy
