FL Gov. Desantis Designates CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood as Foreign Terrorist Organization

Peloni:  Designations are important, but as is true with many laws already on the books in the US while gathering dust, the question is when these laws and designations will be turned into actionable prosecutions.  Such declarations are important, but until or unless someone is charged with something, the declarations are meaningless.

December 9, 2025 | 6 Comments »

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  2. ” Hamas did not exist as an independent entity during most of the Reagan administration; it was officially founded in 1987, near the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. The administration’s Middle East policy primarily focused on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the U.S.-Israel relationship, and countering Soviet influence.
    The Context of the Reagan Administration (1981-1989)
    Focus on the PLO: The main U.S. concern regarding Palestinian groups was the PLO, led by Yasser Arafat. The Reagan administration was involved in negotiations during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon that led to the PLO’s withdrawal from Beirut. Toward the end of his term, in November 1988, Reagan agreed to open a dialogue with the PLO after it accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338, recognized Israel’s right to exist, and renounced terrorism.
    The First Intifada and Hamas’s Founding: The First Intifada (Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation) began in December 1987. Hamas (an acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”) was founded concurrently as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, capitalizing on the momentum of the uprising.
    Initial Hamas Activity: During the first year of the First Intifada, Hamas and other groups initially cooperated with the uprising’s unified leadership and conducted mostly peaceful activities, with very few armed attacks.
    U.S.-Israel Relations: The Reagan administration generally strengthened the U.S.-Israel relationship, signing a memorandum on strategic cooperation in 1983 and designating Israel a “major non-NATO ally” in 1987. However, Reagan did use leverage and pressure on Israel when he disagreed with its actions, notably banning transfers of cluster munitions and strongly condemning Israel’s 1982 bombing of Beirut, which he called a “holocaust” in a phone call with Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
    Limited Direct Engagement: There was no specific, extensive U.S. policy toward Hamas during the Reagan years because the organization was in its infancy and the primary focus of U.S. policy was the PLO and broader Cold War dynamics in the region.
    In essence, Hamas emerged right as the Reagan administration was concluding its foreign policy engagement in the Middle East, which was centered on the Arab-Israeli peace process and the PLO. ”

    AI Overview

  4. “The FBI had “non-invasive ties,” more accurately described as a formal liaison and community outreach relationship, with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) from at least 1996 (CAIR’s first documented law enforcement event) or as early as 1998 (first press release mentioning a meeting), until it suspended these formal contacts in 2008.
    The relationship timeline is as follows:
    1996–1998: CAIR began efforts to build bridges and relations with law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
    Pre-2008: The FBI and CAIR maintained a working relationship where they held joint press conferences, met at local levels, and worked on community issues and civil rights complaints.
    2008: Following the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, where evidence linked CAIR’s leadership to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, FBI Headquarters issued internal memoranda to all field offices to suspend all formal, non-investigative contacts with CAIR unless approved by Washington D.C..
    Post-2008: The formal liaison relationship was severed. The FBI clarified in a 2009 letter to a U.S. Senator that it did not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner until the relationship between CAIR and Hamas could be resolved.
    Current Status: The restrictions on formal contact are still in effect as of recent reports, though local FBI offices may still interact with CAIR regarding specific civil rights complaints or ongoing criminal investigations. “

    AI Overview

  5. It looks like there can be cause for punishment right away. Any money spent to help CAIR is unlawful, facing a fine or imprisonment. I wish the penalty were more severe, but maybe with the size of the aid to the organization it will be.

    18 U.S. Code § 2339B – Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

    U.S. Code
    Notes
    Authorities (CFR)

    prev | next
    (a) Prohibited Activities.—
    (1) Unlawful conduct.—
    Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

    • @Madeleine Does this make any sense?:

      “ CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) was not indicted primarily because prosecutors lacked sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges directly against the organization, and decisions not to prosecute were made by the Justice Department.
      Here is a breakdown of why CAIR was not indicted:
      Insufficient Evidence for Criminal Charges: The primary reason the U.S. government did not indict CAIR was a lack of direct evidence to support criminal charges against the organization itself. The Justice Department determined that there was insufficient proof of criminal activity by the organization as a whole to meet the standard for an indictment.
      Designated as an “Unindicted Co-conspirator”: During the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, CAIR was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” by the government. This term is a procedural label used by prosecutors for various reasons and does not carry legal implications, as it does not require proof in a court of law. It essentially allowed prosecutors to present evidence linking HLF to a network of Muslim Brotherhood organizations, including CAIR, without formally charging CAIR.
      DOJ Decisions: Decisions were made by the Justice Department, including under the Bush administration in 2004 and again in 2010, not to pursue a prosecution of CAIR.
      Disputed Evidence: While a judge in the HLF case ruled there was “ample evidence” linking CAIR to Hamas, CAIR and its supporters dispute the provenance and import of this evidence, arguing that claims made without evidence are false.
      Government Position: The U.S. government’s official stance, as confirmed by then-Secretary of State John Kerry in a letter to CAIR’s executive director, is that “The U.S. government clearly does not consider CAIR to be a terrorist organization”.
      In response to being named an “unindicted co-conspirator,” the FBI severed its formal liaison relationship with CAIR in 2008, a decision that remains in effect. CAIR consistently and strongly denies all allegations of ties to terrorism, emphasizing its role as a civil rights group that condemns all forms of violence and bigotry, including antisemitism and Islamophobia. ”

      AI Overview