Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed into law HB 1471, a measure enabling the state’s chief of domestic security to designate domestic terrorist organizations. This decision, subject to approval by the governor and cabinet, arises if an entity within the state is deemed to be engaged in terrorist activities. The legislation outlines a series of consequences for such organizations and authorizes the Florida secretary of state to dissolve corporations identified with a domestic terrorist label. The legislation also introduces new felonies for assisting these organizations and restricts state funding to private schools permitting the promotion of these groups.
Governor DeSantis emphasized the bill as a safeguard against groups allegedly attempting to infiltrate and undermine the educational system. He has previously attempted to classify the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood as domestic terrorist organizations. A federal court, however, blocked this action on First Amendment grounds, highlighting ongoing debates over free speech implications. CAIR has criticized the bill, describing it as a flawed framework that could potentially target dissenting organizations and stifle free speech. Their concerns further highlight the wider implications of this legislation on civil liberties.
Accompanying HB 1471 is HB 1473, which exempts from public records certain documentation related to the designation of a domestic terrorist organization. Documentation within the chief of domestic security’s report may be concealed if it poses a threat to state or national security interests.
The approach adopted by Florida reflects broader federal actions. For instance, in 2025, President Donald Trump labeled Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization through an executive order, despite the absence of clear statutory authority. Current legislative efforts indicate a trend towards more aggressive stances on domestic threats, though not without legal and ethical challenges, as stakeholders continue to debate the balance between security and constitutional rights.
You can read more about this legislative development here.