The Designate CAIR as a Terrorist Organization Act directs the Secretary of State, in collaboration with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to conduct a formal review of whether the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under INA 219. The review must be completed within 90 days of enactment, and a report to Congress detailing the findings—potentially including a designation—must be submitted.
The bill also anchors its rationale in a series of findings about CAIR’s historical associations and past prosecutions, framing a pathway to an official designation if criteria are met.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs a formal review by the Secretary of State (with the Attorney General and Treasury) to determine if CAIR meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under INA 219, with a Congress-bound report due after the review.
Who It Affects
CAIR and its affiliates, federal agencies involved in the review, Congress, and financial institutions that could be affected by any designation.
Why It Matters
Creates a formal, time-bound decision point on CAIR’s status as a foreign terrorist organization, with significant implications for enforcement, sanctions, and civil-liberties considerations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill would force a formal review of CAIR’s status under the government’s rules for labeling foreign organizations as terrorist groups. Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary of State must, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Treasury, examine whether CAIR meets the legal criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization.
The goal is to produce a report to Congress that either concludes CAIR should be designated or explains why it does not, based on the review’s findings. The bill is grounded in a long list of historical allegations and prosecutions cited by its sponsors, which are intended to justify the review and potential designation.
If CAIR is found to meet the criteria, designation could follow; if not, the report would summarize the evidence leading to that conclusion. The act itself is named to reflect its purpose and establishes a formal process to address these concerns in a single, time-bound action.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a formal INA 219-based review of CAIR within 90 days of enactment.
The review must be conducted by the Secretary of State in collaboration with the Attorney General and the Treasury Secretary.
A Congress-facing report will detail either CAIR’s designation as an FTO or a summary of findings if designation is not warranted.
The act creates a legal pathway to potentially designate CAIR as an FTO, with accompanying enforcement implications if designated.
The short title of the act is the Designate CAIR as a Terrorist Organization Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This act may be cited as the Designate CAIR as a Terrorist Organization Act. It names the bill and establishes its formal designation path in the title itself.
Findings
The bill enumerates congressional findings about CAIR, outlining alleged associations with terrorist financing, historical prosecutions, and statements tying CAIR to broader militant networks. These findings are intended to justify the formal review process and provide context for the potential designation path. The findings function as policy framing rather than procedural steps, setting the stage for a review under INA 219.
Review of CAIR for designation as a foreign terrorist organization
Not later than 90 days after enactment, the Secretary of State, in collaboration with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall conduct a formal review to determine whether CAIR meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under INA 219. The review culminates in a report to Congress that either designates CAIR as an FTO or summarizes the findings leading to a determination that CAIR does not meet the criteria. This creates a concrete, time-bound mechanism for moving from review to designation decision or to an evidentiary summary clarifying why designation was not warranted.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. Department of State, which would lead or participate in the formal designation process and provide the decision framework to Congress.
- Office of the Attorney General, coordinating across agencies to assess criminal-law and designation implications in tandem with the State Department.
- U.S. Department of the Treasury, enabling financial-designation actions and sanctions coordination where designation occurs.
- Congressional oversight bodies (e.g., Judiciary Committee, relevant subcommittees) that will receive a definitive report and conclusions.
- National security policymakers and the broader policy community that gains a formal, time-bound evaluation of CAIR’s status and related risk assessments.
- Victims and families seeking accountability through stronger risk-management and enforcement options.
Who Bears the Cost
- CAIR and its affiliates would face potential designation as an FTO and related restrictions.
- U.S. banks and financial institutions would bear compliance costs if designation triggers sanctions.
- State and local governments or organizations that have engaged with CAIR might reassess relationships and funding.
- Federal agencies would incur additional staff time and resources to complete the review and produce the report.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing national-security concerns and the desire for decisive action against the risk of misapplying a designation to a domestic civil-society organization, potentially infringing civil liberties and inhibiting legitimate advocacy without an independent adjudicatory check.
The bill hinges on controversial findings about CAIR and compiles a broad historical narrative to justify a formal review. The 90-day deadline imposes a tight temporal constraint on a process that historically benefits from thorough, corroborated evidence.
Critics may argue that relying on past prosecutions, speculative associations, and political rhetoric risks mislabeling a civil-society organization and chilling legitimate advocacy. The mechanism also concentrates significant decision-making power in the hands of the Executive Branch in collaboration with the Treasury, which could affect civil-liberties protections and due-process considerations for organizations under review.
The practical implications—sanctions, restricted funding, and civil restrictions—depend on the eventual designation, which this act makes possible but does not guarantee.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.