Opinion - Trump's DOJ should stop treating CAIR as a legitimate immigration provider
Following two recent terrorist attacks on American soil — one killing a young couple outside the Jewish Museum in D.C., and another firebombing elderly Jews in Colorado — several high-profile politicians have called for the Council on American Islamic Relations to be designated as a terrorist organization.
Why is this? CAIR presents itself as a civil rights organization, but it has a longstanding association with Hamas, for which 'ample evidence' was cited in a court ruling unsealed in 2010. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest foreign terror financing case in U.S. history.
This may not be enough on its own for the terrorism designation that those politicians called for, but it is enough that the government should not be conferring special privileges, influence and legitimacy upon CAIR's most powerful state affiliate, CAIR-California.
Since 2015, CAIR-California has enjoyed a special designation that allows non-lawyers on CAIR's staff to represent clients in immigration proceedings. This accreditation also qualifies CAIR-California to receive certain government funding. This status is a privilege, not a right. According to federal regulations, Executive Office of Immigration Review accreditation is reserved for organizations that are acting in the public interest and maintain ethical and financial accountability. CAIR-California has failed to meet these standards.
The Department of Justice should use its lawful authority to revoke CAIR-California's accreditation with the Executive Office of Immigration Review.
CAIR leaders' open support for terrorist violence — which caused the Biden White House to shun the group after the Oct. 7, 2023 terror attacks against Israeli civilians — is clearly not in the public interest. In the time since, its extremist rhetoric has been adopted by swaths of activists across America. CAIR's publications and manuals mimic the incendiary language of its leaders.
National Executive Director Nihad Awad expressed happiness after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. CAIR-California CEO Hussam Ayloush stated that 'Israel should be attacked' and that 'Israel has no right to defend itself.' CAIR-California board officer Zahra Billoo praised Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as a 'martyr' and described Oct. 7 as 'decolonization.'
Immigration law requires providers to assess terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility. Applicants for asylum, legal permanent residency, and many other forms of immigration relief must attest to their rejection of terrorism and their intent not to further it in the United States. How can CAIR-California be trusted to assess the national security risks of clients when it is promoting the very ideology it is tasked with weeding out?
The federal government is effectively letting the fox guard the henhouse.
Aside from these disturbing statements of support for terrorism, CAIR-California's handling of government money should disqualify it from Department of Justice recognition, at least until all funds are publicly accounted for.
A recent investigation by the Intelligent Advocacy Network showed that CAIR-California was entrusted with more than $5 million in federal funds intended to be distributed through sub-grants. Public records offer no public accounting for how that money was spent. In one glaring example, CAIR appears to have sub-granted at least $3.6 million of that $5 million to itself.
California's government transparency site, Open Fiscal, shows that CAIR-California has received more than $10 million in public funding, including $7 million routed from the federal Office of Refugee and Resettlement for immigration assistance and $2.7 million to 'fight hate.' CAIR-California's IRS Form 990 filings fail to disclose these government grants, an apparent violation of tax reporting rules.
CAIR-California also entered into that $7 million public contract with the California Department of Social Services under the name 'CAIR of Greater Los Angeles,' which somehow operates under CAIR-California's tax identification number but does not appear to be a separate legal nonprofit.
This is not a partisan issue. CAIR-California's refusal to open up its financial books and its support for extremism undermine the very immigrant communities the group claims to serve. Public funds should not be used to enrich a single organization or promote violent ideologies.
Department of Justice recognition is meant to ensure that immigration providers deliver competent, ethical legal services and serve as responsible stewards of public funding. CAIR-California has failed to meet these baseline requirements.
The continued flow of federal, state, and city funding to CAIR-California hinges on its accreditation from the Executive Office of Immigration Review. Thus, revocation of that accreditation is not merely symbolic.
The Department of Justice should act to uphold the integrity of its own programs by immediately withdrawing CAIR-California's accreditation. The federal government, California, and the City and County of Los Angeles must end this partnership and work to restore public trust.
Julie Marzouk is the Founder and Principal of Evolve Advocacy Consulting.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Beloved dog joined Minnesota lawmaker, husband as they lay in state
Thousands of people lined up at the Minnesota Capitol to pay tribute to slain lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, who lay in state there Friday, ahead of Saturday's funeral. Between Hortman's casket and that of her husband was an urn containing the ashes of the family's golden retriever, Gilbert.
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Justice Kavanaugh explains what the injunctions ruling won't change
Landmark Supreme Court decisions sometimes don't have the results partisans fear or hope for. The 2010 Citizens United decision loosening restrictions on campaign spending was expected to help Republicans, but now Democrats spend more on political ads. The 2022 Dobbs decision finding that there is no constitutional right to abortion has not reduced the number of abortions.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: Dueling Fed chairs
When it comes to the Federal Reserve, President Trump can't get no satisfaction. He wants the Fed to cut interest rates, and it continually declines to do so. He mused about firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell earlier this year, but the Supreme Court quashed that idea. He routinely trolls Powell anyway, to no effect. So now Trump says he may choose a replacement for Powell months before Powell's term expires in May 2026. Powell would stay in his job until next May, while the 'shadow chair' offered a kind of alternative view of what the central bank's monetary policy could be, or would be once Powell was gone. That might telegraph to markets that lower rates and looser monetary policy are coming once Powell exits. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments Like much of what Trump does, the idea is unprecedented and jarring. The Fed is the most powerful financial institution in the world, fully able to move markets and drive the direction of the economy. Investors parse every word the Fed chair utters, looking for signs of future action. Two voices saying contradictory things about Fed policy couldn't possibly be helpful. But is the idea really that crazy? Corporations do CEO succession planning all the time, and it's actually considered mismanagement if they don't plan for the departure of key executives. Warren Buffett said in May that he finally plans to step down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway at the end of this year, with longtime deputy Greg Abel taking the job. Buffett and his now deceased partner, Charlie Munger, had been talking up Abel for several years, so shareholders expected and welcomed the news. There's a difference, however, between prudent succession planning and what Trump seems to have in mind. Abel is not going to spend the rest of 2025 going on TV to call out all the mistakes he thinks Buffett might be making and promising to shake things up the moment Buffett is gone. He could make subtle changes over time, but investors broadly expect him to manage Berkshire much as Buffett has. Trump wants regime change at the Fed, not continuity. Whoever he picks will undoubtedly be more dovish than Powell and far more willing to cut rates. Powell and a majority of the Fed's policymakers have been holding off on rate cuts since last December, waiting to see if inflation picks up. Many economists think that's prudent, given that Trump's tariffs are a tax pushing up costs, which could add a full percentage point or more to the inflation rate. The Fed normally raises rates to head off inflation, and cutting rates amid rising inflation can make a price surge worse. Read more: How jobs, inflation, and the Fed are all related Trump seems not to care about the inflationary threat. He may also believe that lower rates will stimulate growth and offset the depressant effect of his tariffs. Trump, in his second term, has also overlooked expertise and staffed the government with loyalists willing to fight all his fights and attack all his enemies with the vigor of Trump Trump's shadow chair would likely be somebody who parrots Trump's claims that Powell is a 'numbskull' and a 'dummy' who doesn't know what he's doing. Every time Powell gives testimony or holds a press conference, the anti-Powell could hold his own public event, rebutting Powell and treating investors to frothy dreams of how much richer they'll get once Powell is out of the way. Maybe the shadow chair will show up at Jackson Hole in August and heckle Powell during his annual economic speech. This all sounds kind of silly, but it may already be affecting markets. After Trump floated the idea of a shadow chair, market expectations changed from two Fed interest rate cuts this year to three, according to the CME Group's FedWatch tool. Changing interest rate expectations can affect stock prices, since lower rates sometimes correlate with higher corporate profits. Frontrunners for the shadow job supposedly include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House economist Kevin Hassett, Fed governor Chris Waller, and former Fed governor Kevin Warsh. Those are all pretty serious people not known for the kind of mudslinging Trump may be looking for. Bessent generally declines to say much about the Fed's current policy, which is exactly what markets expect from a Treasury Secretary. The others have argued for a looser policy, but within the normal confines of respectful disagreement. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is more of a bomb-thrower willing to trash-talk the Fed, a la Trump. He recently posted a tweet explaining 'why President Trump calls Powell a loser,' for anybody wanting a tutorial. But Lutnick is the bad cop to Bessent's good cop, and investors would not find comfort in Lutnick's barroom demeanor if he were in line for the Fed job. If Trump's shadow chair spooked markets, it would be counterproductive. There's also the small problem that the Fed chair isn't a dictator unilaterally deciding whether to cut rates. There are 12 members of the Fed's policymaking committee, each with one vote at each policymaking meeting. The chair can be influential, but not autocratic. Powell isn't even the most hawkish voting member, dead-set against rate cuts. He's more of a moderate lodged between hawks resisting rate cuts and doves who think the Fed should be cutting now or soon. As many analysts pointed out when Trump was talking about firing Powell earlier this year, a new chair would still leave the current policymaking board intact. Even Powell would stay. While his term as chairman expires in 2026, his term as a voting member of the policymaking committee runs to 2028. A shadow chair wouldn't have any voting power until the Senate confirmed him or her to the job next May. The best such a person could do is amplify the chorus of voices vilifying Powell. Maybe that would be good enough for Trump. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
