Abbott Designates Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR As Foreign Terrorists

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has officially labeled the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations, a forceful move that follows his border security efforts and recent federal designations of violent groups abroad.

Texas has long marketed an air of toughness, and Governor Abbott has leaned into that reputation with Operation Lone Star and high-profile actions against those he deems threats to public safety and state sovereignty. That program, launched in March 2021, has led to massive arrest totals and drug interdictions tied to border enforcement. The governor’s recent designation of two groups as terrorist organizations is the latest example of his willingness to take bold, and controversial, steps.

The Texas border mission has produced striking statistics: more than 495,400 illegal alien apprehensions, over 38,300 criminal arrests, more than 34,700 felony charges, and an astonishing seizure tally in the fentanyl fight exceeding 453 million doses. Those numbers are central to Abbott’s narrative that law and order matter, and that the state will act where federal efforts fall short. That same posture frames his stance toward organizations he says promote extremist goals.

In a public release, the governor explicitly connected the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR to a broader pattern of extremism and alleged attempts to subvert laws and spread a political-religious agenda. His declaration carries legal and political consequences, including a prohibition on acquiring real property interests in Texas for the designated entities. This is the type of unilateral state action likely to trigger litigation and heated debate in courtrooms and in the media.

The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR have long made their goals clear: to forcibly impose Sharia law and establish Islam’s ‘mastership of the world.’ The actions taken by the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR to support terrorism across the globe and subvert our laws through violence, intimidation, and harassment are unacceptable. 

Today, I designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations. These radical extremists are not welcome in our state and are now prohibited from acquiring any real property interest in Texas.

That quoted language is stark and absolute, and it will be replayed in legal briefings and in political rallies alike. Expect civil liberties groups, religious organizations, and national legal advocates to challenge both the factual basis and the constitutionality of state-level terror listings. The governor’s office, meanwhile, will point to public safety metrics and alleged organizational ties to argue the action is justified.

The move follows other federal actions against extremist groups overseas, where the State Department recently labeled several violent Antifa-aligned cells as foreign terrorist organizations for alleged bombings and shootings across Europe. Those federal steps set a backdrop that gives states political cover when taking their own defensive measures. Texas’s leadership is framing this as part of a larger, transnational fight against violent ideologies and networks.

Part of the public reaction will focus on a pending development project tied to a prominent North Texas Muslim community planning a 400-acre residential neighborhood anchored by a large mosque. That proposal has drawn scrutiny from state and federal officials and has become intertwined with the debate over the governor’s designations. Local concerns about zoning, public safety, and cultural change are being folded into a broader, national conversation about extremism and civil liberties.

Opponents of Abbott’s decision argue the move risks stigmatizing entire communities and could chill legitimate civil rights and religious advocacy work. Supporters counter that decisive measures are needed when organizations are believed to support or enable extremism. The clash of these perspectives is exactly what will play out in the courts and in the court of public opinion over the coming months.

Beyond the legal fights, the designation sends a clear political message about Texas’s posture on security and identity politics. Whether that message translates into enduring policy changes or is rolled back by judges will depend on the evidence presented and the legal theories used to justify state-level designations. For now, the governor has drawn a line in the sand and signaled Texas will not quietly tolerate organizations it deems a threat.

This action also highlights tensions between state authority and federal prerogatives in national security and immigration enforcement. As similar disputes have shown, collisions between states and the federal government over who controls designations and enforcement are likely to keep this matter tied up in litigation and political sparring. The immediate result is that these groups are now facing significant restrictions inside Texas while the broader legal battle begins.