1. United States
2. Fla.
3. Letter

The proposed legislation in Florida—House Bill 1471 and Senate Bill 1632—raises serious concerns about civil liberties, government overreach, and the potential for unintended consequences. While public safety is a legitimate priority, these bills grant sweeping authority to designate organizations as terrorist groups without sufficient safeguards, transparency, or accountability. At the core of the issue is the concentration of power within state security leadership, particularly through entities like the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Allowing state officials to unilaterally designate organizations as terrorist groups creates a dangerous precedent. Unlike the federal designation process, which involves extensive intelligence review, interagency coordination, and legal oversight, these bills risk enabling decisions based on incomplete evidence or political pressure. Without clear, objective standards and independent review, there is a real risk of misclassification. This ambiguity could have a chilling effect on lawful civic engagement. Advocacy groups, protest movements, and grassroots organizations could face scrutiny or designation based on controversial or unpopular viewpoints rather than genuine threats of violence. The mere possibility of designation may discourage citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to organize, protest, and express dissent. In a democratic society, disagreement with government policy must never be conflated with terrorism. Additionally, the lack of robust due process protections is troubling. Organizations facing designation would suffer severe consequences, including criminal liability for members and supporters, reputational damage, and loss of access to public resources. Yet the bills do not clearly establish fair and timely mechanisms for appeal, independent review, or correction of errors. Once labeled, the damage could be immediate and lasting—even if the designation is later overturned. The Florida Legislature has a responsibility to balance security with constitutional protections. Broad and vaguely defined authority undermines public trust and risks politicizing a tool that should be reserved only for clear and imminent threats. Even leaders such as Ron DeSantis, who emphasize law and order, must ensure that policies strengthen safety without weakening the legal protections that define a free society. Ultimately, protecting public safety and protecting civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. These bills, as written, tilt too far toward unchecked authority and insufficient oversight. Florida deserves security measures that are precise, transparent, and accountable—not ones that risk eroding the freedoms they aim to defend.