From Texas to Washington: Is the Muslim Brotherhood Issue Becoming a Broader American Question?
The issue of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is no longer confined to limited debates within certain states. During 2025 and 2026, it became part of a broader political and security debate at the national level.
Texas is one of the states that moved early on this issue. In November 2025, its governor, Greg Abbott, announced the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, before the issue returned to the political spotlight during the Republican convention in Dallas in September 2026.
But the U.S. process does not stop at Texas. There is a distinction between measures taken by a state and decisions made by the federal government in Washington.
The Starting Point: Texas
On November 18, 2025, the Texas government announced that Abbott had designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist organizations, placing the state at the centre of the American debate over the movement.
The state government subsequently continued to adopt measures and legislation related to what it describes as combating “sharia” or preventing the establishment of alternative legal systems within Texas.
In September 2025, Abbott had already signed legislation aimed at preventing the creation of residential developments described as being governed by sharia, emphasizing that U.S. law is the governing legal framework within the state.
Then Washington Enters the Picture
Later, the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood also became present at the federal level, with measures taken by the U.S. administration toward specific branches of the movement.
This highlights an important point: the American system does not treat political and legal designations in the same way at the state and federal levels.
A decision made by the State of Texas has a different legal scope from a decision made by the State Department, the Treasury Department, or any other relevant federal authority.
Therefore, saying that “Texas designated the group before Washington” may be accurate with regard to the chronology of certain measures, but it should not be understood to mean that the State of Texas possesses all the powers held by the federal government.
Why Does Texas Want to Act?
The Abbott administration presents the issue as one involving security, the rule of law, and opposition to organizations that the state considers extremist.
The administration says that these measures target specific organizations or arrangements, rather than Muslims on the basis of their faith.
By contrast, Muslim and civil-rights organizations argue that some of these measures could have broader effects on Muslims’ civic activities, particularly if political rhetoric shifts from targeting specific organizations to making broader references to Islam or Muslims in general.
Elections Change the Nature of the Debate
It is difficult to separate this issue from the 2026 electoral context.
The Republican convention in Dallas was held in preparation for the midterm elections and featured speeches focused on security, immigration, identity, culture, and religion.
During the same period, national media coverage indicated that issues involving Islam and Muslims had become increasingly prominent in American electoral campaigns.
Supporters of raising these issues argue that voters have the right to know where candidates stand on terrorism, extremism, and national security.
Critics of this rhetoric, meanwhile, argue that focusing on Islam and Muslims can lead to generalizations that conflate extremism with religious affiliation.
The CAIR Issue
CAIR is one of the most sensitive issues in this context.
The organization describes itself as a civil-rights organization advocating for American Muslims, while Texas authorities have made allegations against it involving the Muslim Brotherhood and extremism.
The organization has rejected those allegations and described the Texas government’s measures as unconstitutional.
The judiciary therefore becomes a key element in determining whether government measures are based on sufficient legal authority and whether they are consistent with the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
What Does This Mean for American Muslims?
It is important to distinguish between measures directed at a specific organization and the situation of the millions of Muslims living in the United States.
Even where designations and measures exist against particular groups or institutions, this does not automatically mean that Muslims as a group have become legally targeted or that the practice of Islam has been prohibited.
Recent data and reports indicate that American Muslims have become increasingly active in political and civic life, making their concerns an increasingly visible part of the electoral debate.
The Debate Over Sharia
The term “sharia” has become one of the most frequently used terms in political rhetoric concerning Muslims in Texas.
From a legal perspective, however, it is necessary to define precisely what is meant by the term.
Muslims practicing their religious rites does not mean that a parallel judicial system exists. In the United States, contracts, transactions, and courts are governed by American law.
For this reason, some laws referring to “sharia” target specific situations, such as the establishment of residential or legal arrangements alleged to go beyond civil law. Abbott signed legislation in 2025 specifically concerning residential developments for this purpose.
What Did Abbott Say in Dallas?
During the Republican Party convention in Dallas, Abbott returned to the issue of banning sharia in Texas, in a speech delivered amid a broader electoral debate over religion, culture, security, and immigration.
The speech did not mark the beginning of the designation policy; rather, it represented a continuation of a policy that had begun well before the convention.
For this reason, any republication of the video should be accompanied by information clarifying its date and context, so that viewers do not mistakenly believe that the decision was issued in September 2026.
Could the Issue Become a National Matter?
There are already indications that the issue has moved from the state level into the federal debate, particularly with measures taken by the U.S. government toward specific branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.
However, the relationship between state decisions and federal decisions is complex. Action by one state does not necessarily mean that all states or the federal government have adopted the same position.
Under the American system, powers can overlap and come into conflict, and some cases may reach the courts to determine the constitutional and legal boundaries of those powers.
Between Security and Rights
The fundamental question raised by this issue is how to balance efforts to combat organizations that authorities consider dangerous with the protection of freedom of religion, association, and expression.
This is a longstanding debate in the United States, but it has gained renewed importance in the context of the war on terror, conflicts in the Middle East, and the growing political presence of American Muslims.
Recent developments indicate that this issue is unlikely to remain confined to Texas, particularly as the midterm elections approach and religious and cultural issues become increasingly prominent in political campaigns.
The story of Texas and the Muslim Brotherhood begins with the November 2025 decision, not with the Dallas convention in September 2026.
The Dallas convention represented a new political stage during which Greg Abbott once again raised the issue of sharia and matters related to political Islam.
While the Texas government presents its policy as a defence of security and the rule of law, Muslim and civil-rights organizations reject some of the allegations and express concern about their implications for civil liberties.
At the federal level, the Muslim Brotherhood issue has also become part of the broader debate, opening the way for a wider American discussion about the definition of terrorist organizations, the powers of the states, the role of the federal government, and the limits of freedom of association and religion.
Thus, the video circulating from Dallas is part of a larger story that began months earlier, and whose legal and political dimensions remain the subject of debate within the United States.
