Two Texas Republican congressmen announced the formation of a “Sharia Free America Caucus” on Wednesday, declaring their goal is to “protect Western civilization” by advancing legislation to ban foreign nationals who “adhere to Sharia” from entering the United States and to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, according to Fox News Digital. Representatives Keith Self and Chip Roy, both Texas Republicans, are leading the new House group with support from Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, as the culture war over Islam and immigration intensifies in Washington.
Legislative Agenda Targets Islamic Law
The caucus aims to push forward controversial measures already introduced in Congress, including Roy’s bill to prohibit entry and deport foreign nationals deemed to adhere to Sharia law, Fox News reported. “America is facing a threat that directly attacks our Constitution and our Western values: the spread of Sharia law,” Roy stated, adding that “instances of Sharia adherents masquerading as ‘refugees’ — and in many cases, sleeper cells connected to terrorist organizations — are threatening the American way of life”.
Self, a military veteran, told Fox News Digital that the caucus will “start educating the American people to the dangers of Sharia in the United States,” calling Islamic law “fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution”. The lawmakers are also advocating for H.R. 4397, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025, which would require the President to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, according to congressional records.
Constitutional Experts Challenge Claims
Legal scholars and civil rights organizations have strongly contested the lawmakers’ assertions, emphasizing that existing constitutional protections already prevent any religious legal system from superseding American law. The Islamic Network Group states that “since Muslims constitute only 1 to 2% of the American populace, there is minimal risk [of] Sharia being [applied to] U.S. law [in] American courts,” noting that American Muslims “are merely required to follow U.S. law as the law of the land”.
“The First Amendment clearly provides protection for the free exercise of religion, which includes protecting the rights of Muslims, as well as Jews, Christians, and others, to observe their own laws in matters of faith.”
— Islamic Network Group
Religious arbitration experts explain that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and other faith communities currently practice voluntary religious arbitration under the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act, which applies only to civil cases and requires all decisions to comply with U.S. law and public policy. Fox News acknowledged in its reporting that “guarantees of religious freedom in the Constitution mean that Sharia law can not be carried out on any governmental level in the U.S.,” describing the caucus as “largely symbolic in nature”.
Civil Rights Groups Condemn Initiative
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, has condemned similar legislative efforts as discriminatory attacks on religious freedom. CAIR-Texas previously responded to related Texas legislation by stating that “Sharia provides Muslims with moral guidance in matters of worship, charity, and business ethics, but is not a criminal code and poses no threat to American law”.
The organization has argued that anti-Sharia legislation would restrict not only Islamic religious practice but also Jewish halacha and Catholic canon law, as all three faith traditions use religious arbitration for civil matters within their communities. Research from UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute documented approximately 194 anti-Sharia bills introduced across American states between 2010 and 2016, with 18 becoming law in 12 states, as part of a movement critics say “normalizes the exclusion of Muslims and fosters a climate of fear”.
Political Context and Bipartisan Criticism
The caucus formation comes amid heightened Republican focus on immigration and Islam following Trump’s expanded travel ban affecting Muslim-majority and African nations. Self and Roy have referenced controversies in Texas involving Governor Greg Abbott’s crackdown on what he termed “Sharia compounds,” specifically the EPIC City development near Dallas, which the governor ordered investigated by multiple state agencies.
The lawmakers have pointed to unrest in European countries like the United Kingdom and France involving Muslim refugees as justification for their initiative, according to Fox News. In a November House floor speech, Self declared that “Islam is a culture with matina of religion” and that “Sharia is dangerous,” stating “either we defeat the Sharia advances in America or government of the people, by the people, for the people will perish from the Earth”.
Uncertain Congressional Path
The caucus faces significant obstacles in advancing its legislative agenda. Any bills must pass through committee review in the Republican-controlled House and would require Senate approval before reaching President Trump’s desk. Constitutional law experts predict that such legislation would face immediate legal challenges in federal courts on First Amendment grounds.
Representative Randy Fine of Florida, who co-sponsored related “No Sharia Act” legislation with Self in September, has drawn criticism from civil rights organizations for what they describe as “Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian” statements, including social media posts claiming Muslims’ “goal was to bring sharia law to America”. The Muslim Public Affairs Council has warned that such rhetoric “undermines the credibility of legitimate counterterrorism efforts, endangers communities through guilt-by-association, and fuels anti-Muslim bigotry while platforming Islamophobia in the highest levels of government”.
As the Sharia Free America Caucus begins operations, it represents the latest flashpoint in ongoing national debates about religious freedom, immigration policy, and the boundaries of constitutional protection for minority communities in an increasingly polarized political landscape.
Really solid reporting here on both the lawmakers' rationale and the constitutional counterarguments. The point about the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act is crucial imo because it shows religious arbitration for civil matters already has a clear legal framework that applies to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. When I worked in Texas politics, we'd often see this kind of legislation pop up as a signaling move rather than somthing with real policy teeth, and it sounds like even Fox is acknowledging the "largely symbolic" nature here.