Trumps Department of Health and Human Services has opened a formal review into whether the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its state affiliates improperly received and used tens of millions of dollars in federal funds despite long-standing allegations of ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to The Post Millennial, the inquiry centers on roughly $30 million in refugee resettlement and related assistance that flowed to CAIR-linked entities in California and Washington state. The development follows months of pressure from congressional Republicans, who have urged the administration to suspend CAIR from federal programs and to examine whether taxpayer money has been funneled to organizations with alleged connections to extremist networks.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly confirmed the review in a statement posted to X, signaling that the administration could be forced to confront the political and legal implications of its past dealings with CAIR. "HHS has requested a review of allegations involving @CAIRNational and its affiliates @CAIRCalifornia and @CAIRWashington regarding the use of federal grant funds. Americans deserve full transparency when taxpayer dollars are involved. If there is evidence of fraud, abuse, or ties to designated terrorist organizations, we will act.
Kennedy further emphasized that the matter would not be confined to HHS alone, indicating that other agencies may be drawn into the probe. He added, "I have shared these concerns with @SecRubio and encouraged a full @StateDept review of any information relevant to this matter. "Accountability is not optional. Protecting the integrity of federal programs is our responsibility."
The current review was prompted in part by reporting that HHS is examining what became of approximately $30 million in federal refugee resettlement funds routed to CAIR affiliates in California and Washington. As reported by the New York Post and cited in subsequent coverage, HHS sent formal letters to California Governor Gavin Newsom and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, stating that the department had obtained information raising concerns about CAIRs business practices and alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
Those letters reportedly warned that if the allegations are substantiated, CAIR and its affiliates could face suspension and debarment from participation in federal programs. Such a move would represent a significant break with the posture of previous Democratic administrations, which frequently treated CAIR as a mainstream civil-rights partner despite its controversial record.
The HHS action comes on the heels of a pointed letter from Republican lawmakers urging Kennedy to suspend and debar CAIR and its affiliates from receiving any federal funds. The lawmakers argued that CAIR's "deep and enduring connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, Hamas" render the organization unfit to receive taxpayer dollars and pose a risk to the integrity of federal grantmaking.
According to that congressional correspondence, CAIR and its California affiliate alone have taken in millions of dollars in federal refugee assistance over recent years. This includes more than $15 million distributed through California programs ostensibly designed to provide legal services to Afghan refugees, a vulnerable population whose plight has been used to justify rapid and often poorly monitored spending.
The lawmakers contended that audits and public records have raised serious questions about how those funds were actually spent and whether the grantees complied with the terms and conditions of the awards. Their concerns reflect a broader conservative critique that progressive state governments and the Biden administration have treated ideologically aligned nonprofits as de facto contractors, with insufficient oversight and little regard for potential security implications.
CAIRs entanglement with federal authorities is not new. The organization was previously identified by the Justice Departments Office of the Inspector General as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case, the largest such prosecution in American history, which exposed a vast Hamas support network operating on U.S. soil.
In that case, federal prosecutors argued that the Holy Land Foundation functioned as part of a Hamas infrastructure in the United States, channeling money and support to the designated terrorist group. Court records in the matter found "ample evidence" connecting CAIR to Hamas, though the organization itself was never criminally charged, a fact its defenders often highlight while critics point to the evidentiary record and the unindicted co-conspirator designation.
Investigators also documented that CAIRs founders, including its current executive director Nihad Awad, were members of the Muslim Brotherhoods Palestine Committee. That committee was described by U.S. authorities as a support apparatus for Hamas in North America, tasked with advancing the groups political and financial interests under the cover of civil-society activism.
Despite this history, CAIR has long been treated by many in the media and on the left as a mainstream Muslim advocacy group, a perception that has come under renewed strain since Hamas October 7, 2023, terrorist onslaught against Israel. In the wake of that massacre, Awad ignited widespread outrage when he declared that he was "happy to see" Palestinians "breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land," comments made in reference to the attacks that left 1,200 people dead and more than 240 hostages taken.
Those remarks, which critics saw as a chilling celebration of mass murder and kidnapping, ultimately forced the Biden White House to distance itself from CAIR. The administration removed the group from its much-touted antisemitism task force, a move that underscored the political liability CAIR had become even for a Democratic administration that had previously embraced it.
Other CAIR officials have compounded the controversy with their own statements following October 7. CAIR-San Francisco Executive Director Zahra Billoo wrote, "We are witnessing decolonization" on the very day of the attacks and later referred to slain Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as a "martyr," rhetoric that aligns more with radical anti-Israel activism than with any conventional civil-rights agenda.
In California, CAIR-California CEO Hussam Ayloush has drawn criticism for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and asserting that "Israel should be attacked." Such language has fueled concerns that taxpayer dollars are being funneled to organizations whose leaders openly legitimize or endorse violence against Americas closest ally in the Middle East.
A recent investigation by City Journal further intensified scrutiny of CAIRs financial relationship with the state of California. That report found that California directed at least $41 million to CAIR-California over the past five years, including $7.2 million earmarked for Afghan refugee legal services and another $23 million approved in 2025, a staggering sum for a group with such a contentious record.
City Journal also alleged that CAIR-California used its position as a state-funded intermediary to distribute millions in taxpayer-funded grants to other organizations linked to Islamist movements. For critics, this pattern suggests not merely questionable grant management but the construction of a publicly financed ecosystem of ideologically aligned groups operating under the banner of community services.
The federal review has also cast a spotlight on CAIRs operations in Washington state. According to The New York Post, HHS traced approximately $1.3 million in federal refugee assistance funding that was routed to CAIR-Washington through the Washington Department of Social and Health Services, raising similar questions about oversight and due diligence.
In its letter to Governor Ferguson, HHS reportedly stated that it had received information raising concerns about CAIRs alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. The department warned that ongoing reviews could result in suspension or debarment from federal programs if those allegations are substantiated, a potential blow to CAIR-Washingtons influence and funding streams.
The controversy arrives at a politically sensitive moment for CAIR-WA Executive Director Imraan Siddiqi, who is currently running for a seat in the Washington State House. Siddiqi recently received the endorsement of far-left Squad member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), a prominent critic of Israel whose backing underscores the ideological alignment between CAIR-WA and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Siddiqi has repeatedly accused Israel of committing "genocide," labeled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "war criminal," and provoked backlash after telling Democrats who condemned Hamas October 7 attacks to "STFU." CAIR-WA has also opposed efforts to classify the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" as antisemitic in Washington state school materials, despite the phrases documented use by Hamas as a call for the elimination of Israel.
Washingtons Democratic leadership has a long record of collaboration with CAIR. Ferguson, the states attorney general, previously sued the Trump administration on CAIRs behalf over the administrations travel ban targeting several terror-linked countries, a case that elevated his national profile among progressives while aligning his office with CAIRs agenda.
More recently, CAIR was revealed to be participating in King Countys Human and Civil Rights Commission alongside various activist groups engaged in discussions about ICE enforcement, immigration policy, and refugee issues. The commissions inaugural report showed CAIR representatives taking part in meetings concerning local ICE activity and the challenges facing organizations serving immigrant communities, further embedding the group in the regions policy infrastructure.
Despite this extensive history of cooperation, Ferguson has not publicly commented on the HHS review. His silence has drawn notice from conservatives who argue that state officials who partnered with CAIR should be pressed to explain what they knew about the groups alleged ties and how they justified channeling public funds to it.
On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers have steadily escalated their calls for federal action against CAIR. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has urged investigations into the organizations nonprofit status and funding sources, questioning whether CAIRs activities are compatible with the legal obligations and transparency expected of tax-exempt entities.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and other House Republicans have pressed federal agencies to determine whether CAIR receives support from foreign terrorist organizations. Their efforts reflect a broader conservative push to scrutinize the foreign entanglements and ideological agendas of nonprofits that have been embraced by the progressive establishment.
At the state level, some Republican governors have already moved to formally classify CAIR and its ideological allies as security threats. Texas Governor Greg Abbott designated CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations under Texas law in 2025, a step aimed at limiting their operational space and signaling that the state would not treat them as legitimate partners.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis later took similar action, reinforcing a red-state consensus that groups with documented ties to Islamist movements should not be normalized as mainstream civil-rights organizations. Earlier this year, Abbott announced that a federal court had granted his request for donor records, donation lists, and travel records connected to Nihad Awads visits to countries hosting Islamic terrorist groups, a ruling that could shed light on CAIRs international connections.
CAIR has also faced legal pressure over its financial transparency. Last year, the organization reportedly chose to settle litigation with a former employee rather than disclose records concerning alleged foreign funding sources, a decision that has only deepened suspicions among critics about what those records might reveal.
As HHS proceeds with its review, the stakes extend well beyond a single grant program or nonprofit. The case raises fundamental questions about how rigorously the federal government vets its partners, whether ideological favoritism has overridden security concerns, and how many millions in taxpayer dollars may have already flowed to organizations whose leaders praise martyrs, justify terrorism as decolonization, or tell elected officials condemning Hamas to STFU.
Login