On November 25, 2025, a coalition of Muslim organizations and interfaith leaders from North Texas gathered in Dallas to publicly denounce Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s recent proclamation labeling the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a terrorist and transnational criminal organization. The move, which has sent ripples through Texas’s faith communities and civil rights circles, has ignited a fierce debate about constitutional rights, state authority, and the broader implications for Muslim Americans.
At the heart of the controversy is Abbott’s official designation of both CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) under Texas state law. This state-level action, announced on November 18, 2025, bars these groups from acquiring property in Texas and directs the Department of Public Safety to begin criminal investigations into their activities. Notably, the designation does not carry the legal weight of a federal Foreign Terrorist Organization listing, which only the U.S. State Department can issue, and therefore does not trigger federal terrorism penalties.
CAIR, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, responded swiftly by filing a lawsuit against Governor Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The organization argues that the designation violates both the U.S. Constitution and state law, specifically pointing to infringements on First Amendment rights and due-process protections. According to CAIR, the governor’s actions overstep state authority, as terrorism designations fall squarely within federal jurisdiction.
At the Dallas news conference, Mustaffa Carroll, executive director for CAIR Dallas-Fort Worth, delivered a pointed rebuke of the governor’s move. "The governor is attempting to punish the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization simply because he disagrees with its protected First Amendment rights to criticize a foreign state that is conducting genocide. This is not only contrary to the United States Constitution, but finds no support in any Texas law," Carroll said, as reported by FOX 4.
Marium Uddin of the Muslim Legal Defense Fund echoed Carroll’s sentiments, emphasizing CAIR’s longstanding opposition to terrorism and bigotry. "You know that CAIR has condemned Hamas attacks. You know that CAIR has spent 31 years fighting terrorism and bigotry. You know that the terrorism boogeyman you invoke is nothing more than a tired, formulated playbook to stoke fear of Muslims," Uddin stated, according to Fox News and FOX 4.
The coalition’s concerns were not confined to the Muslim community alone. Interfaith voices joined the outcry, highlighting the broader implications for religious freedom and civil rights in Texas. Deborah Armintor, representing Jewish Voice for Peace, declared, "We stand steadfast in solidarity with our comrades in CAIR and in unwavering support in their lawsuit against Abbott’s false and unconstitutional proclamation." The message: faith communities across Texas see the governor’s move as not only an attack on CAIR but a threat to the principles of free speech and association that underpin American democracy.
Local political leaders also weighed in. State Representative Terry Meza, a Democrat, joined the coalition in urging Governor Abbott to retract his proclamation. "Your words are not just wrong, they’re dangerous. Making comments like this are dangerous to our Muslim community," Meza said during the news conference, as cited by multiple outlets.
Governor Abbott, for his part, has stood firm. He has dismissed CAIR’s lawsuit as "lame" and defended his designation by pointing to what he describes as CAIR’s "long history of ties and connections to terrorism and to Hamas." Abbott’s proclamation also directs law enforcement to investigate individuals or groups allegedly seeking to unlawfully impose Sharia Law in Texas, referencing a Muslim development project in Collin County known as Epic City. Developers of that project have flatly denied any such intentions.
The legal and political ramifications of Abbott’s proclamation are still unfolding. While the new Texas law bars property acquisitions by organizations designated as transnational criminal groups, critics argue that the measure is both overbroad and lacking in specific evidence of criminal activity by CAIR within Texas. The governor’s directive does not identify any particular incidents or individuals linked to terrorism, raising questions about the evidentiary basis for such a sweeping action.
CAIR’s lawsuit, now making its way through the courts, contends that Abbott’s actions are not only unconstitutional but also set a dangerous precedent for the use of state power against civil rights organizations. The group’s legal team maintains that the governor’s order is "defamatory, destructive, and dangerous," words echoed by nearly every speaker at the Dallas press event.
The dispute has also highlighted the limits of state authority in matters of national security and terrorism. As Fox News points out, only the federal government can officially designate a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization—a power that carries significant legal consequences, including asset freezes and criminal penalties. Abbott’s state-level designation, while symbolically potent, does not confer these federal powers and may ultimately be struck down if courts find that Texas has overstepped its jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, Muslim leaders and their interfaith allies warn that the governor’s rhetoric and actions risk fueling Islamophobia and undermining the safety of Muslim communities in Texas. They argue that labeling a prominent civil rights group as a terrorist organization without clear evidence not only chills free speech but also emboldens those who would target Muslims for harassment or violence.
At the same time, supporters of Abbott’s move argue that the state has a duty to protect its citizens from any organization with alleged ties to terrorism. They contend that the property ban and investigative directive are prudent measures to ensure public safety, even if federal authorities have not taken similar steps. This divide reflects a broader national debate over the balance between security and civil liberties, particularly in the post-9/11 era.
As the legal battle continues, the outcome of CAIR’s lawsuit could set important precedents for how states interact with national security issues and civil rights organizations. For now, the controversy remains a flashpoint in Texas politics, with both sides digging in for what promises to be a protracted—and closely watched—fight.
For Texas’s Muslim community and their allies, the stakes could hardly be higher. As Mustaffa Carroll and others made clear, they view this as a test of whether constitutional protections for free speech, religious freedom, and due process will hold firm in the face of political pressure and fear-driven policymaking.
Whatever the courts decide, the debate has already reshaped the conversation about civil rights, religious freedom, and the proper limits of state power in America’s second-largest state.
