Abbott’s Shocking Move — UNPRECEDENTED Branding!

Texas flag displayed on a wooden background

Texas just took the unprecedented step of branding two prominent Muslim organizations as terrorists and stripping them of the right to buy land, testing the limits of state power and religious freedom in the post‑Biden era.

Story Snapshot

Governor Greg Abbott used new Texas law to label the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organizations under state code.
The proclamation bars these groups, their members, and affiliates from purchasing or acquiring real property anywhere in Texas.
Neither organization is designated as a terrorist group by the federal government, and CAIR insists it is a mainstream civil‑rights nonprofit.
Supporters hail the move as a strong stand against Islamist influence, while critics warn of constitutional and property‑rights challenges.

Abbott’s proclamation and new land ban

Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a formal proclamation on November 17, 2025, declaring the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American‑Islamic Relations to be foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organizations under Texas law. He relied on recently expanded authority in the Texas Penal and Property Codes that allow the governor to target entities deemed to endanger state security and to restrict their real‑estate dealings. The order states that these organizations, their affiliates, and their members are barred from purchasing or acquiring land anywhere in Texas.

This declaration goes beyond rhetoric by tying a terrorism label directly to core property rights, something usually handled at the federal level. Previous Texas legislation focused on blocking land purchases by entities linked to countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, but Abbott’s move extends that model to ideological and religiously connected organizations. For many conservative Texans concerned about national security and foreign influence, this represents a long‑sought effort to keep potentially hostile networks from buying strategic land in the state.

Why CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are in the crosshairs

The Muslim Brotherhood began in Egypt in 1928 as a Sunni Islamist movement that blended religious activism with politics and social outreach, later inspiring or connecting with organizations across the Middle East, including Hamas. Some governments have outlawed the Brotherhood as a terrorist group, while others tolerate or even engage with it, and the United States has never formally designated the Brotherhood itself as a Foreign Terrorist Organization even though related entities like Hamas are listed. That gap between foreign bans and U.S. policy has fueled long‑running calls from security hawks to clamp down harder on Brotherhood‑linked networks.

CAIR, founded in 1994, presents itself as a domestic Muslim civil‑rights and advocacy group focused on combating anti‑Muslim discrimination, litigating civil‑liberties cases, and shaping policy debates. The organization has often criticized U.S. and Israeli policies, especially around Gaza, which has made it a lightning rod for accusations from some conservatives that it serves as a political or ideological bridge to Islamist movements. Abbott’s proclamation characterizes CAIR as tied to or evolving from the Muslim Brotherhood and alleges support for terrorism and efforts to impose sharia‑based norms, claims CAIR flatly rejects as defamatory and politically driven.

Legal tension between Texas power and federal authority

By stepping into terrorism designation territory, Texas is wading into an area that legal experts generally view as a federal responsibility tied to foreign affairs and national security. Federal law controls the formal listing of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and neither CAIR nor the Muslim Brotherhood appears on that list, even though some offshoots and allies do. Abbott’s proclamation leans on state‑level security and property statutes, but courts will now have to decide whether a governor can effectively create a parallel, state‑only terrorist list and attach real‑estate consequences to it.

Within days of the proclamation, CAIR and allied civil‑rights lawyers moved toward or filed litigation challenging Abbott’s authority and the factual basis of the terrorist designation. Their arguments center on First Amendment protections for religious practice and political advocacy, equal‑protection concerns about singling out Muslim organizations, and the Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law the upper hand in foreign‑policy domains. Constitutional scholars warn that aggressive use of terrorism rhetoric against a domestic civil‑rights group could set a precedent for future governors to target other advocacy organizations they dislike, from gun‑rights groups to pro‑life ministries.

What this means for property rights and Texas Muslims

On the ground, the proclamation injects real uncertainty into land transactions involving mosques, schools, charities, or community centers that state officials might label affiliates or supporters of CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood. Even before any enforcement action, the stigma of a terrorist label can scare off banks, landlords, donors, and business partners who fear legal trouble or reputational risk. For Muslim communities already under scrutiny from prior Texas actions against alleged “sharia law compounds,” this move raises new concerns about whether routine religious and civic projects could suddenly be treated as security threats.

For conservatives who care deeply about private property, this is where the tension becomes more complicated. On one hand, many applaud Abbott for using every available tool to keep hostile ideologies from buying up land and building parallel legal or cultural systems inside the United States. On the other hand, if a state can limit property ownership for one disfavored group using contested security claims, future leaders could apply the same framework against churches, gun ranges, Christian schools, or ranchers whose politics they oppose, undermining the very property protections that anchor Texas liberty.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has stripped two Muslim organizations of their right to buy land in the state by labeling them terrorists https://t.co/YvlSS9S2E2

— reason (@reason) December 5, 2025

Real‑estate professionals, local governments, and lenders now face the practical challenge of vetting buyers and tenants against an evolving and somewhat vague list of alleged affiliates. That new burden may introduce risk‑averse behavior that harms innocent buyers who simply share a faith background with targeted organizations but have no organizational ties. Over time, repeated use of security‑based land‑ownership bans could also create a perception that property rights in Texas are contingent on political winds, potentially dampening investment and sowing distrust among minority communities toward state institutions.

Broader political stakes in the Trump era

Abbott’s timing intersects with national debates over Israel, Gaza, and Islamism, as well as renewed emphasis on border security and foreign influence now that President Trump is back in the White House. For many in the Republican base, confronting Islamist movements and their perceived U.S. allies is seen as part of defending Western civilization, Israel’s security, and American constitutional values against ideological encroachment. Supporters frame Texas as stepping into a leadership gap they believe Washington left open for years by refusing to name the Muslim Brotherhood itself as a terrorist organization.

At the same time, conservative defenders of the Constitution will want to watch carefully how courts balance state security claims with free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection. If judges uphold Texas’ proclamation, other red states may follow with their own lists of ideological or religious organizations barred from owning land, potentially reshaping the national map of where certain groups can operate. If courts strike it down, the ruling may reaffirm federal primacy over terrorism designations and draw a clearer line against using state power to label domestic advocacy groups as terrorists without solid, public evidence of criminal conduct.