DeSantis Labels CAIR a ‘Terrorist Organization’ in Florida Executive Order

Lead

On Dec. 8, 2025, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an executive order declaring the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) a foreign terrorist organization, echoing a similar move by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in November 2025. The order names CAIR and references ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to groups the U.S. government already designates as terrorist, and it directs Florida agencies to block contracts, jobs, funds and public benefits to those identified as affiliates. CAIR and its Florida chapter called the action a “stunt” and said they would sue, as CAIR has already sued Texas over that state’s declaration. The move deepens a nationwide dispute over civil‑rights advocacy, national security designations and due‑process protections for nonprofit groups.

Key Takeaways

• On Dec. 8, 2025, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an executive order labeling CAIR a foreign terrorist organization; the order mirrors a declaration by Gov. Greg Abbott in November 2025.
• The Florida directive cites alleged links between CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and groups such as Hamas, which the U.S. government designated after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
• CAIR has an office in Tampa; the Florida order does not ban CAIR from owning land but bars state contracts, jobs, funds or public benefits to those determined to have provided material support.
• CAIR has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Texas designation; the organization and its Florida chapter say they will also sue Florida, arguing due‑process and civil‑rights violations.
• The order empowers a state domestic security council of agency heads to review authorities, regulations and policies and to recommend further measures against CAIR and related entities.
• Sen. Marco Rubio indicated similar federal measures may be “in the works,” raising the prospect of policy escalation beyond state actions.
• Recent incidents — the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack, last month’s shooting of two National Guard members by an Afghan immigrant, and a fraud scandal involving Somali Americans in Minnesota — have increased public scrutiny of some Muslim organizations.

Background

The Council on American‑Islamic Relations, founded in 1994 and based in Washington, D.C., describes itself as one of the nation’s largest Muslim civil‑rights and advocacy organizations. Over decades CAIR has litigated on behalf of Muslims on issues including free speech, religious accommodation and discrimination. The group has repeatedly denied ties to Hamas and other designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt in 1928 and is a transnational movement with a diverse set of affiliates and ideological currents across the Middle East and beyond. U.S. policy toward the Brotherhood has varied by administration and over time, and American authorities have not designated the Brotherhood as a single foreign terrorist organization at the federal level.

State governors have limited authority compared with the federal government on designating foreign terrorist organizations. Texas’s November 2025 declaration led to a prompt federal lawsuit from CAIR arguing that the label was applied without the procedural protections required by federal law. Those legal challenges are central to whether state‑level designations can be enforced or will be blocked by courts.

Main Event

Gov. DeSantis posted the executive order on X on Dec. 8, 2025, without an accompanying detailed public explanation. The order states that CAIR was “founded by persons connected to the Muslim Brotherhood” and links the Brotherhood to Hamas, the latter already on the U.S. list of designated foreign terrorist organizations following the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.

Unlike Texas’s declaration, the Florida order does not explicitly prohibit CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood from purchasing land in the state. Instead, it instructs state agencies to deny contracts, employment, grants and other public benefits to anyone the agencies determine has provided “material support or resources” to CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood.

The order also directs the state’s domestic security council—composed of agency heads—to audit current rules, authorities and procedures, and to recommend additional measures to address perceived threats from the two named organizations. That council will assess enforcement pathways short of criminal prosecution, focused on administrative and contracting exclusions.

CAIR and CAIR‑Florida issued a joint statement calling the order a “stunt” and announcing plans to sue. The group asserted its record advancing civil‑rights protections, including for Palestinian Americans, and reiterated past denials of ties to Hamas. The litigation strategy in Texas and any similar suit in Florida will likely test whether courts permit state executives to apply quasi‑criminal labels without federal process.

Analysis & Implications

The Florida order elevates a jurisdictional and constitutional confrontation: states moving to impose sanctions or restrictions based on security labels that historically have been applied by the federal government. If courts uphold state designations, other states could follow, creating a patchwork of public‑benefit exclusions with broad implications for nonprofits and advocacy groups.

Legally, courts will weigh whether a state executive can brand an organization a terrorist group absent congressional or federal‑executive‑branch designation and without procedurally defined hearings. CAIR’s pending lawsuits argue that labeling a domestic nonprofit a criminal entity without due process violates federal statutes and constitutional protections; the outcomes could set precedent on executive reach and First Amendment protections for advocacy groups.

Politically, the declarations play in a charged post‑Oct. 7 context and amid recent violent incidents that have heightened public anxiety. Governors who issue these orders gain immediate political visibility among constituents concerned about national security, but they also risk alienating civil‑liberties advocates and moderates who see the moves as overreach or discriminatory toward Muslim communities.

Practically, the orders may have limited near‑term operational effect if courts enjoin enforcement, but they can have chilling consequences: nonprofits may face fundraising difficulties, volunteers and employees may be deterred, and local governments and contractors may avoid engagement to limit risk. The prospect of federal action, hinted at by a senior senator, would be the most consequential change, converting state declarations into a broader national policy shift.

Comparison & Data

The table summarizes how Texas and Florida have taken analogous but not identical administrative steps. Texas’s action prompted an immediate federal lawsuit; Florida’s order copies some language but concentrates on administrative exclusions and an interagency review. Legal challenges in both states will clarify whether those administrative bans can be implemented while litigation proceeds.

Reactions & Quotes

CAIR’s joint statement with its Florida chapter framed the order as politically motivated and pledged litigation. Context: the group has a long record of civil‑rights litigation and public advocacy; its leadership says the designation mischaracterizes its work.

“The order is a stunt — CAIR‑Florida is an American civil rights organization that has spent decades advancing free speech, religious freedom and justice for all.”

CAIR and CAIR‑Florida statement

Federal lawmakers and state officials reacted with a mix of endorsement and caution. A senior Republican senator suggested federal action could follow, signaling that state moves might be a prelude to broader policy—but federal designation requires a separate administrative and legal process.

“Similar actions at the federal level are in the works.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (as reported)

Legal observers have stressed that the labels invite constitutional and statutory challenges. Courts will have to decide whether applying a terrorist designation at the state level, with resulting administrative penalties, meets due‑process standards.

“The central question for courts will be whether a state executive can impose quasi‑criminal penalties without the procedural safeguards provided at the federal level.”

Legal analyst (summary of expert view)

Unconfirmed

• Whether Florida will formally add CAIR to any state criminal list or pursue indictments is not stated in the order and remains unconfirmed.
• The scope and timing of any coordinated federal action following Sen. Rubio’s remarks are not confirmed and would require formal federal processes.

Bottom Line

Florida’s Dec. 8, 2025, executive order that brands CAIR a foreign terrorist organization amplifies a legal and political battle over how security labels are applied in the United States. The immediate, practical effects hinge on pending litigation: CAIR has already sued Texas and plans to sue Florida, and courts will be asked to decide whether states can impose administrative penalties without federal designation or established procedural safeguards.

Regardless of judicial outcomes, the orders carry broader consequences: they may chill civic engagement by Muslim‑American organizations, alter how state agencies contract and interact with nonprofits, and prompt calls for clearer federal guidance or statutory reforms. Observers should watch the progress of the lawsuits and any subsequent federal pronouncements for signals about whether these state‑level declarations will become enduring policy or be curtailed by the courts.

Sources

• The New York Times — news report on DeSantis executive order (media)
• Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) — civil‑rights organization official site and press releases (organization)
• Office of the Governor of Florida — official gubernatorial website (official)
• Office of the Governor of Texas — official gubernatorial website for Gov. Greg Abbott (official)