DeSantis Declares War: Florida Bans CAIR, Cites Terror Ties

Paul Riverbank, 12/9/2025Florida and Texas label CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorists, sparking legal battles and raising questions on free speech, state authority, and the civil rights of Muslim Americans—amid federal inaction and national controversy.

The move echoed what unfolded weeks earlier across state lines in Texas. There, Governor Greg Abbott signed off on a similar measure, denouncing the groups as “radical extremists” and barring them from acquiring land. Florida, not to be outdone, raced to adopt its own posture, with DeSantis posting online that the new order kicked in, quote, “EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.” The directive instructs state agencies to cut off privileges, benefits—really, anything that could support people tied to these groups.

“The Muslim Brotherhood has spent decades building a network to advance a global Islamic caliphate,” the governor asserted in his executive order. He went further: the group, he said, has “direct links to Hamas,” an assertion that has long sparked controversy. DeSantis doubled down, framing the Brotherhood’s religious-political outlook as fundamentally incompatible with bedrock American ideals of freedom, equality, and religious tolerance.

CAIR was far from spared. DeSantis’ order accused the organization of serving as a convenient façade—founded by individuals with ties to the Brotherhood and, he claimed, quietly shielding connections to extremist circles. He invoked a high-profile legal case, pointing to CAIR’s status as an unindicted co-conspirator in what federal prosecutors called the country’s largest terrorism-financing trial. The specifics of that case are still cited by CAIR’s critics, even though the organization itself has repeatedly denied financial links to any group tied to violence.

CAIR’s response was blunt, dismissing the order as little more than political theater. “We look forward to defeating Governor DeSantis’ latest Israel First stunt in a court of law, where facts matter and conspiracy theories have no weight,” their statement read. They painted the initiative as a campaign of intimidation, one aimed at silencing voices critical of U.S. support for Israel, and pledged not to be cowed.

The reality on the ground isn’t quite so black and white. Neither the Muslim Brotherhood nor CAIR is designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. federal government—something DeSantis and Abbott left unmentioned. And for all the rhetoric, these organizations defy easy categorization. The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, claims to reject violence and, in several Arab countries, focuses its activities on running schools or clinics rather than political activism. CAIR, for its part, routinely insists it has never funded any group on Washington’s terrorism lists.

That’s not to say there aren’t supporters applauding the governors’ moves. In Texas, Abbott argued—much as DeSantis would—that if Washington isn’t prepared to act, states should seize the initiative. He called for the state attorney general to pursue legal action, blocking the groups from real estate holdings and financial activities on Texas soil.

Yet, these state-level crackdowns have their detractors, and not just among advocates for Muslim-American rights. Critics point out the potential for overreach—concerned that such orders may chill constitutionally protected speech, especially among those critical of U.S. foreign policy or military support for Israel. CAIR’s retort to Texas and Florida officials strikes at this tension, warning of attempts to equate criticism with extremism.

This tug of war, between state-level activism and entrenched federal norms, is all but guaranteed to end up in the courts. Judges will have to sift through competing evidence and forceful claims from both sides, weighing the bounds of state power against federally enshrined protections. For now, though, Florida’s action is the latest sign of how far some state officials are willing to go, with political climates shifting rapidly and the fate of these executive orders anything but settled.

On Monday, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, threw a sharp spotlight on two controversial organizations: the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, better known as CAIR. His announcement, delivered with characteristic flair, declared both groups “foreign terrorist organizations”—a step sure to set off legal and political alarms.The move echoed what unfolded weeks earlier across state lines in Texas. There, Governor Greg Abbott signed off on a similar measure, denouncing the groups as “radical extremists” and barring them from acquiring land. Florida, not to be outdone, raced to adopt its own posture, with DeSantis posting online that the new order kicked in, quote, “EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.” The directive instructs state agencies to cut off privileges, benefits—really, anything that could support people tied to these groups.“The Muslim Brotherhood has spent decades building a network to advance a global Islamic caliphate,” the governor asserted in his executive order. He went further: the group, he said, has “direct links to Hamas,” an assertion that has long sparked controversy. DeSantis doubled down, framing the Brotherhood’s religious-political outlook as fundamentally incompatible with bedrock American ideals of freedom, equality, and religious tolerance.CAIR was far from spared. DeSantis’ order accused the organization of serving as a convenient façade—founded by individuals with ties to the Brotherhood and, he claimed, quietly shielding connections to extremist circles. He invoked a high-profile legal case, pointing to CAIR’s status as an unindicted co-conspirator in what federal prosecutors called the country’s largest terrorism-financing trial. The specifics of that case are still cited by CAIR’s critics, even though the organization itself has repeatedly denied financial links to any group tied to violence.CAIR’s response was blunt, dismissing the order as little more than political theater. “We look forward to defeating Governor DeSantis’ latest Israel First stunt in a court of law, where facts matter and conspiracy theories have no weight,” their statement read. They painted the initiative as a campaign of intimidation, one aimed at silencing voices critical of U.S. support for Israel, and pledged not to be cowed.The reality on the ground isn’t quite so black and white. Neither the Muslim Brotherhood nor CAIR is designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. federal government—something DeSantis and Abbott left unmentioned. And for all the rhetoric, these organizations defy easy categorization. The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, claims to reject violence and, in several Arab countries, focuses its activities on running schools or clinics rather than political activism. CAIR, for its part, routinely insists it has never funded any group on Washington’s terrorism lists.That’s not to say there aren’t supporters applauding the governors’ moves. In Texas, Abbott argued—much as DeSantis would—that if Washington isn’t prepared to act, states should seize the initiative. He called for the state attorney general to pursue legal action, blocking the groups from real estate holdings and financial activities on Texas soil.Yet, these state-level crackdowns have their detractors, and not just among advocates for Muslim-American rights. Critics point out the potential for overreach—concerned that such orders may chill constitutionally protected speech, especially among those critical of U.S. foreign policy or military support for Israel. CAIR’s retort to Texas and Florida officials strikes at this tension, warning of attempts to equate criticism with extremism.This tug of war, between state-level activism and entrenched federal norms, is all but guaranteed to end up in the courts. Judges will have to sift through competing evidence and forceful claims from both sides, weighing the bounds of state power against federally enshrined protections. For now, though, Florida’s action is the latest sign of how far some state officials are willing to go, with political climates shifting rapidly and the fate of these executive orders anything but settled.