Did Texas Gov. Abbott Declare a Terrorist Organization?
Campaign Talk
Hi friends,
Texas officials have used strong language to suggest certain organizations have been “designated” as terrorist groups or curtailed the influence of Sharia law. In reality, these actions—primarily a 2025 gubernatorial proclamation and related legislation—carry little, if any, legal effect than the rhetoric implies. While federal authorities have identified and acted on legitimate security concerns in specific cases, the power to formally designate terrorist organizations rests with the federal government, and Texas laws in this area largely reinforce existing constitutional limits, not creating new ones.
In November 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation claiming to “designate” the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations.
The document is a proclamation—not a statute, not a court ruling, and not a federal designation. It relies on existing Texas law (including references to provisions like Texas Penal Code §22.07 on terroristic threats) and serves primarily as a policy statement directing state agencies to operate within authority they already have. It does not create new law, and it does not carry the legal force of a federal terrorism designation. Under U.S. law, only the federal government—through the State Department—can formally designate a foreign terrorist organization. A governor does not have that authority, and a state-level declaration does not trigger federal penalties, sanctions, or immigration consequences.
This becomes clearer when viewed alongside other widely discussed Texas actions. For example, Texas HB 4211 (2025), authored by Candy Noble and signed by Abbott, was heavily promoted as addressing or even “banning” so-called “Sharia compounds.” In reality, the law regulates certain housing and contractual arrangements—requiring transparency and ensuring disputes are governed by U.S. law. It is fundamentally a consumer protection and property law measure, not a prohibition on religious practice or legal system.
Similarly, earlier legislation often cited in this context—Texas HB 45 (2017)—does not ban Sharia law. It simply ensures that no foreign or religious legal system can be applied in Texas courts if it conflicts with constitutional rights. That standard already exists under U.S. law and applies broadly to all non-U.S. legal frameworks, not just one religion.
Taken together, these examples show a consistent pattern: the public messaging is broader than the legal substance. The proclamation uses the language of terrorism designation but does not create one. HB 4211 was framed as targeting religious systems but instead addresses contract and property structures. HB 45 is often described as banning Sharia, yet it merely reinforces constitutional limits already in place.
The Holy Land Foundation trial (2007–2008), the largest terrorism-financing prosecution in U.S. history, resulted in convictions for providing material support to Hamas. Among the documents entered into evidence was the “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” introduced by prosecutors as contextual evidence regarding networks and strategic outlooks. (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-judge-hands-downs-sentences-holy-land-foundation-case)
While state-level proclamations may overstate their legal authority, the concerns driving them are not without foundation—and they are not confined to political rhetoric. At the federal level, Congress has formally examined “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat” (https://www.congress.gov/event/115th-congress/house-event/108532/text), highlighting international reach and influence. More concretely, the U.S. government has designated specific Muslim Brotherhood branches as terrorist organizations after determining they provided material support to groups such as Hamas (https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0357). These are not symbolic actions; they reflect documented findings and national security assessments.
The disconnect, therefore, is not whether risks exist—but how they are addressed. When public messaging exceeds truth, it can create confusion instead of clarity. But ignoring the underlying issue is equally problematic.
The challenge is to promptly confront threats with precision, rule of law, and enforceable action.
Even at the federal level, designation is not instantaneous. President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order did not itself designate any organization, but instead directed a formal review process that ultimately led to the designation of specific Muslim Brotherhood branches in 2026. This underscores a key point: even the President must operate within a defined legal framework—something state-level actions cannot bypass.
Whether ‘designated’, ‘deemed’, ‘proclaimed’ (or otherwise), action has been taken by Attorney General Ken Paxton. The suit is ongoing.
Texas Sues CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood to Halt Operations in the State
Sources:
Trump Executive Order & Federal Actions
Executive Order (Primary Source)
White House Fact Sheet (explains process)
Supporting explanation (independent analysis noting it starts a process, not designation)
💰 Treasury / Federal Designation Actions
Treasury press release (actual designations of MB branches)
🏛️ Congressional Hearing
“The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat”
⚖️ Holy Land Foundation Case
DOJ official case summary (most authoritative)
⚖️ Texas Actions & Lawsuit
Abbott Proclamation (Nov. 18, 2025)
Paxton Lawsuit (your document)
CAIR Federal Complaint
📜 Texas Legislation
HB 4211 (2025)
HB 45 (2017)
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.
White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Disclaimer:
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.
No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.
While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!