Overview
In less than a month, Texas and Florida governors have branded CAIR, the country’s largest Muslim civil rights group, a “foreign terrorist organization” and ordered their states to cut off contracts, jobs, and funds. CAIR calls it a smear campaign; the governors say they’re targeting Hamas-linked extremists.
The stakes reach far beyond one nonprofit. At issue is whether governors can unilaterally slap the terrorism label on domestic advocacy groups, sidestep federal authority, and punish political opponents—especially Muslim critics of U.S. and Israeli policy—without running headlong into the Constitution.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The largest Muslim civil rights group in the U.S., now fighting to clear its name.
Florida’s governor is testing how far a state can go in defining terrorism.
Texas pioneered using state powers to brand CAIR a terrorist and criminal organization.
A nearly century-old Islamist movement now central to U.S. political battles over terrorism labels.
Timeline
-
DeSantis doubles down, invites discovery fight
StatementQuestioned by reporters, DeSantis says he “welcomes” CAIR’s lawsuit, framing it as a chance to subpoena the group’s bank records and hinting at follow-up legislation in the next session.
-
CAIR-Florida vows lawsuit and warns of rising Islamophobia
LegalAt a Tampa news conference, CAIR-Florida leaders call the order conspiratorial and unconstitutional, promise a lawsuit, and warn it will intensify Islamophobic harassment and threats.
-
Florida follows Texas, declares CAIR a foreign terrorist organization
PolicyGovernor Ron DeSantis issues an executive order labeling CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood foreign terrorist organizations, instructing state agencies to deny them contracts, employment, and funding.
-
Trump orders review to label Muslim Brotherhood chapters terrorists
PolicyA White House order directs State and Treasury to assess whether Muslim Brotherhood branches in countries like Egypt and Lebanon should be designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations and global terrorists.
-
CAIR sues Texas over terrorist label
LegalCAIR’s Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin chapters file a federal lawsuit, arguing Abbott’s proclamation violates the Constitution and Texas law and punishes their viewpoints.
-
Texas brands CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood terrorist, criminal groups
PolicyGovernor Greg Abbott proclaims CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood “foreign terrorist organizations” and “transnational criminal organizations,” barring them and affiliates from purchasing land in Texas.
-
Trump restarts expansive use of terrorist designations
PolicyTrump signs an order initiating the process to re-designate Yemen’s Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, previewing broader reliance on FTO tools.
-
Hamas attack on Israel reshapes U.S. debate on Islamism and Gaza
BackgroundHamas fighters kill about 1,200 people in Israel; Israel’s response devastates Gaza, fueling intense U.S. polarization and scrutiny of Muslim and pro-Palestinian advocacy.
Scenarios
Federal Courts Strike Down State Terror Labels on CAIR
Discussed by: Civil liberties lawyers, CAIR attorneys, legal scholars quoted by AP, Washington Post and local outlets
CAIR’s lawsuit against Texas advances first, with a federal judge finding that governors cannot unilaterally declare domestic nonprofits “foreign terrorist organizations,” especially when the federal government has declined to do so. Courts rule the proclamations violate the First Amendment by punishing protected advocacy and are preempted by federal authority over terrorism designations. Florida’s order, built on similar theories, then gets blocked or quickly rescinded. The rulings send a chill through statehouses considering copycat measures and reaffirm that “terrorist” is not a label governors can weaponize at will.
Conservative States Copy Florida and Texas, Creating Patchwork Terror Lists
Discussed by: Conservative advocacy networks, right-leaning media, and Muslim civil rights groups warning of a domino effect
Even as lawsuits grind through the courts, other GOP-led states adopt Texas- and Florida-style proclamations or pass laws restricting CAIR, Students for Justice in Palestine chapters, or vaguely defined “sharia-linked” groups. Governors sell these moves as standing with Israel and fighting terrorism. CAIR and allied organizations scramble to triage litigation and security concerns while donors and partners in targeted states hesitate to engage. Federal agencies stay formally on the sidelines, deepening the sense of a fragmented, politicized terrorism regime depending on where you live.
Supreme Court Takes a Landmark Case on States and ‘Terrorist’ Labels
Discussed by: Constitutional scholars, major newspapers’ legal analysts, and advocacy groups on both sides
A split among federal appeals courts or a sweeping lower-court ruling against a cluster of state designations pushes the issue to the Supreme Court. The justices confront whether states can penalize organizations by invoking terrorism language without clear statutory authority or due process, and how far officials can go in punishing groups for pro-Palestinian or Islamist-adjacent speech. A broad decision could either sharply limit state experimentation in this area, or, if the Court defers to governors, open the door to partisan terrorism blacklists targeting many kinds of advocacy organizations.
Trump Administration Formally Blacklists Some Muslim Brotherhood Branches
Discussed by: Middle East analysts, security commentators, and administration allies backing broader Brotherhood crackdown
After the State and Treasury Departments finish their review, Washington designates specific Muslim Brotherhood branches abroad as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Governors in Texas and Florida claim vindication and argue their CAIR designations are part of the same fight. Legally, however, the federal list still omits CAIR and most Brotherhood-linked political parties, keeping the core constitutional questions in the state cases alive while raising fears that future administrations will stretch terrorism tools deeper into ideological territory.
Historical Context
McCarthy-Era Blacklists of ‘Subversive’ Organizations
Late 1940s–1950sWhat Happened
During the early Cold War, federal and state authorities compiled lists of allegedly communist or subversive organizations and used loyalty oaths, hearings, and blacklists to push them out of public life. Membership or association alone could cost people jobs, contracts, or reputations, often without meaningful due process.
Outcome
Short term: Thousands lost work or were ostracized, and political dissent on the left was chilled nationwide.
Long term: Courts later curtailed many of these practices, reinforcing protections for association and political speech.
Why It's Relevant
The CAIR fight revives questions about whether governments can stigmatize disfavored groups as security threats and quietly punish their supporters.
The Holy Land Foundation Terrorism Case
2001–2009What Happened
The Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., was shut down after 9/11 and its leaders convicted of providing material support to Hamas. Prosecutors and critics linked some former leaders and donors to broader Muslim organizations, including CAIR, feeding long-running accusations of hidden Hamas networks.
Outcome
Short term: The charity was dismantled, several officials received long prison sentences, and Muslim donors became more cautious.
Long term: Supporters still challenge aspects of the case, but politicians now routinely cite it to imply that mainstream Muslim groups mask extremism.
Why It's Relevant
Abbott and DeSantis lean on similar narratives of “front groups” and guilt by association to justify branding CAIR a terrorist organization.
State Anti-BDS Laws Challenged in Court
2015–2023What Happened
More than 30 states passed laws penalizing boycotts of Israel, often requiring contractors to certify they wouldn’t support BDS. Teachers, journalists and small businesses sued, arguing the laws compelled political speech and punished constitutionally protected boycotts.
Outcome
Short term: Several laws were blocked or narrowed after federal courts found them likely violated the First Amendment.
Long term: The cases established that states cannot condition public work on renouncing certain political boycotts.
Why It's Relevant
Those rulings are a roadmap for CAIR: courts have already signaled skepticism toward state efforts to punish pro-Palestinian advocacy through contract and employment rules.