On April 6, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed an antiterrorism bill as part of his agenda to boost internal state security and combat foreign threats. HB 1471, sponsored by Representative Hillary Cassel (R-Dania Beach), includes several encompassing measures and will go into effect by July 1.
What’s most important to note is the lack of clarity in the bill’s language, which could lead to a deviation from the bill’s intent.
While the approval of the antiterrorism bill (HB 1471) can be beneficial for public safety, its vague language can unintentionally accomplish much more than simply preventing terrorist attacks — it can expel college students.
Who Decides Who’s a Terrorist?
Under HB 1471, Florida’s Chief of Domestic Security would have the authority to request that a suspected group be designated as a domestic or foreign terrorist organization.
The recommendation would be sent to the governor and the cabinet, requiring majority approval from both. While elected into office, all members of the Florida Cabinet currently belong to the same party as the governor.
Already, Governor DeSantis determined that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil rights group advocating for Muslim Americans, would be a terrorist organization in his December 2025 executive order.
CAIR isn’t federally designated as a terrorist organization. The executive order was blocked with a temporary injunction in March 2026.
Judge Mark Walker pointed out that there’s no emergency need for such actions and that the initiative “coerces third parties to cut ties with Plaintiff.” He cited that a Florida production company recently ended an agreement with CAIR to produce a podcast because of the executive order.
What Counts as Terrorism?
Note that terrorism is more than just a heinous crime. Domestic terrorism must be “ideologically driven” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” civilians or “influence” U.S. policy. This means that not every mass shooting or hate crime is an act of terrorism.
There’s no formal legal process on a national level that clearly outlines how to designate an organization as domestic terrorism. While the FBI investigates domestic terror cases, it doesn’t have a public list of domestic terrorist organizations.
Why is it a big deal if the Florida Government adopts a similar power? Domestic terrorism “evades easy definition,” according to the Harvard Law Review. There’s federal legislation that defines domestic terrorism, but it doesn’t create specific charges for domestic terrorism, nor does it assign punishments to those charges.
How Will This Affect College Students?
HB 1471 subjects Florida to uncharted legal and political territory. The law is already so vague on a federal level because “terrorism” is a serious accusation.
A terrorism designation or enhancement can come with harsher penalties, such as an additional felony charge or college expulsion. The designation risks being applied inconsistently without clear limits and can potentially infringe on civil liberties, such as freedom of speech.
We can see this risk potentially play out when examining the wording of the bill. Lines 567-568 of HB 1471 mention college students engaging in “disruptive activities” and “promoting a domestic or foreign terrorist organization” on campus.
Representative Cassel, the bill sponsor, explained that “promotion” includes “making a statement and taking action that supports, approves, or encourages terrorist violence.”
When answering Representative Anna Eskamani’s (D-Orlando) questioning, she clarified that solely attending a protest containing some demonstrators supporting a terrorist organization does not count as “promotion.”
However, whether specific cases constitute “promoting violence” is up to the university since it’s an honor code violation. The violation will result in immediate expulsion, and the university may deny the award of institutional aid.
Why Is This Bill Controversial?
HB 1471 comes with a critical debate: how does the government combat terrorism without infringing on people’s rights? Both sides of the aisle seem to take different approaches, with some prioritizing broader preventative measures and others stressing the importance of limiting government overreach to protect civil liberties.
Given the current polarized state of American politics, vague laws intended to build a more prosecutable case for broadly defined allegations are at risk of strategic use by a dominant party to further a policy agenda or sway public opinion in their favor.
“You don’t have to like someone’s speech, but the way to combat it is with better speech, not to cancel that speech,” said Representative Eskamani.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to follow us on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Pinterest!