Share

Policy Issues / Red-Green Alliance

Primer: How States Can Protect the Constitutional Order from Islamic Subversion

by Andrew White

November 12, 2026

Political leaders must act now to implement the policies and set the conditions that will protect their citizens’ lives and liberties against Islamic aims of civilizational and societal conquest.

Synopsis

The rise of the neo-Marxist and Muslim political alliance (known as the Red-Green Alliance) in U.S. politics remains the foremost domestic political threat to the constitutional order of the United States.¹ Islam operates as a totalizing political ideology as much as it operates as a religion—dictating everything from how Muslims organize their home, their community, and their government, under the expectation that followers offer complete political, societal, and individual submission to Islam. This expectation is enforced by way of Sharia law, the Islamic code that governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life and ultimately instructs Muslims to conquer unbelievers and punish them—including with extreme corporal punishment and death—if they do not accede to Islam’s supremacy over their lives.²

Christianity and the Bible provide a blueprint for living a virtuous life and for interacting with believers, nonbelievers, community, and government authorities. However, unlike Islam, Christianity does not instruct Christians on how to construct their civil authorities and political system. Nor does Christianity reinforce its biblical precepts by threatening or encouraging violence for those who refuse to put their faith in Jesus. This distinction between Islam and Christianity is paramount to understanding the threat the former poses to the societies underpinned by the latter. 

Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization, the biblically backed ethos that animates Western conceptions of human liberty, and the American constitutional order, which rests on a fundamentally Christian understanding of man’s relationship with both God and government. Islam seeks to wield the rights recognized in the U.S. Constitution as a means of ultimately eradicating those rights. The strategy is as simple as it is dangerous: Exploit Western freedoms and republican processes—often in tandem with radical leftists—to gain power, then impose an Islamic order through the forms of the system itself. This complete inversion of the American way of life poses an existential threat to the republic. 

The Establishment Clause expressly forbids the federal government from establishing a state-sanctioned, state-sponsored religion, whether Muslim, Christian, or anything else. This is crucial for protecting citizens from persecution and government-imposed despotism. Yet that authoritarian, government-imposed despotism is precisely what Islam requires. Islam has no historical tradition or doctrinal acceptance of separating government power from Islamic ideology. The early history of Islam is consistent with its identity today: a political and militaristic ideology, undergirded by religious fervor, that demands domination through conquest and force. It is a totalizing doctrine that cannot abide the pluralistic, Western accommodations of other belief systems once it gains power.

While some states have begun to recognize this reality, far too many Americans remain oblivious to the threat growing around them. The rise of radical neo-Marxist and Muslim political leaders such as Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed, Ilhan Omar, Adam Hamawy, and Darializa Chevalier—alongside high-profile influencers such as Hasan Piker—will inevitably stir many Americans to stand up and push back. Political leaders must act now to implement the policies and set the conditions that will protect their citizens’ lives and liberties against Islamic aims of civilizational and societal conquest.

Overview: Islam and State Policies

So, when you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overpower them, then hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or after taking a ransom, until war shall have come to end. If Allah had pleased He could have punished them, but He wills to test some of you through some others. He will not allow the deeds of those who are killed in the cause of Allah go to waste.”—Surah 47:4

According to the latest Census datasets, the total Muslim population of the United States is estimated to be roughly 5.5 million, equal to about 1.6 percent of the total population.³ There has been a 130 percent increase in the U.S. Muslim population over the last two decades.⁴ Importantly, these numbers do not fully account for the mass importation of millions of noncitizens into the United States during the Biden administration. The actual number is likely much higher—particularly given that the majority of Muslims in the United States are foreign-born.⁵ Today, the total U.S. Muslim population is roughly equal to the entire population of South Carolina. If trends continue at their current rate, the total U.S. Muslim population will both overtake the American Jewish population and exceed that of Massachusetts by 2040—making the total number of U.S. Muslims equivalent to the fifteenth most populous state in the union.

Currently, there are more than three thousand mosques operating inside the United States, a 43 percent increase since 2010.⁶ This figure is especially alarming given the well-documented⁷ use of military installations as mosques⁸ and the use of mosques as military outposts⁹ throughout the history of Islam¹⁰ and in modern times.¹¹ In both practice and principle, mosques serve as physical outposts for Islam’s core tenets, demanding total individual, societal, and political control.

In 2010, Oklahoma became the first state to propose and enact laws to ban Sharia law.¹² While progressive corporate media outlets predictably mocked Oklahomans,¹³ prescient legislators called the effort a preemptive strike against an ideology gaining ground in other Western nations such as the United Kingdom and France.¹⁴ Just fifteen years later, the United Kingdom’s population is now more than 6 percent Muslim,¹⁵ equal to a 151 percent growth in its Muslim population since 2001.¹⁶ Further, the United Kingdom is being ravaged by predominantly Muslim Pakistani rape gangs,¹⁷ while British citizens have been arrested simply for speaking out against the ideologically and culturally driven violence being perpetuated by Muslims against their daughters.¹⁸ 

At the time of this writing, far-left riots¹⁹ originating in Paris suburbs dominated by mostly foreign-born, Muslim populations are rocking France.²⁰ This is the latest evidence in a long line of signs of the social, cultural, and political upheaval facing Western civilization as a result of the fusion of Islam and neo-Marxism. While corporate media outlets insist the riots are driven by discontent over job shortages, the prominent waving of Palestinian flags as neighborhoods burn reveals the ideology driving the destruction.²¹

Oklahoma’s lawmakers foresaw the danger and laid the foundation for preemptive protection of the American constitutional order, and other states have since joined in. From 2010 to 2012, thirty-two states filed a total of ninety-two bills to prohibit courts from taking into consideration Sharia law, Islamic law, or other foreign and religious laws as part of their jurisprudence.²² Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee successfully passed some version of these bills into law, albeit with more watered-down language not explicitly tied to Sharia law, after a flawed Tenth Circuit Court decision forced Oklahoma lawmakers to alter their bill under the dubious notion that it infringed on Muslims’ constitutional rights.²³ 

In 2012, the Tenth Circuit upheld an injunction against Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment prohibiting Sharia law on the basis that the amendment discriminates against Muslims because it “specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law.”²⁴ The court did so on behalf of the state director of the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), which is now a designated domestic terrorist group under Florida state law. However, the Tenth Circuit’s legal reasoning is flimsy: The amendment did not prohibit the practice of Islam. It specifically prohibited Oklahoma courts from applying Sharia and Islamic law in their state law jurisprudence. In effect, it was a constitutional amendment designed to reinforce and protect the Establishment Clause from Sharia law, which requires eradicating the Establishment Clause to implement a state-sanctioned religion and ideology on all citizens.²⁵  

In the years thereafter, however, momentum built from this initial wave of Islam-curbing state statutory provisions. In 2013, for example, North Carolina prohibited administrative agencies and state courts from applying foreign law (which includes Sharia law without explicitly naming it) in family court decisions.²⁶ Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment in 2014 similar to North Carolina’s statutory provisions,²⁷ and Arkansas passed H.B. 1041 in 2017, locking similar language in state code.²⁸ In the last two years, nearly forty bills and resolutions aimed at stopping Islamic law have been presented at the state and federal level.²⁹  

Perhaps the best state effort to defend the constitutional order is Florida’s H.B. 1471.³⁰ This bill, which was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on April 6, 2026, takes a far more encompassing approach to warding off the pernicious influences of Islam on the body politic. Specifically, the Florida bill

• prohibits a court, administrative law judge, agency, or other judicial panel from applying any provision of foreign or religious law that violates a person’s constitutional rights
• designates and includes Sharia law as a legal code that is incompatible with the constitutional rights of Americans
• makes clear that common law, natural law, and other Western legal traditions are both compatible and integral to the constitutional order
• sets up strong guardrails against state intervention in the adjudication of ecclesiastical matters for religious entities
• creates a process for the state to designate entities as foreign or domestic terrorist organizations. This process has subsequently allowed Florida to specifically target entities such as CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa as terrorist entities.³¹ 
• creates prohibitions and penalties for K–12 schools and higher education institutions that employ, contract with, or accept funds from designated entities 
• implements reporting requirements for taxpayer-funded universities for students on visas affiliated with or promoting designated foreign and domestic terrorist organizations, followed by a mandate for immediate expulsion

Recent trends suggest that many states that lack Florida’s strongly protective legislation are beginning to accede to Islam’s cultural and ideological fusion into American society. A sampling of bills that enable the rise of Islam includes the following:

• Washington became the first state to recognize Islamic holidays Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha as official state holidays in 2025 with S.B. 5106.³²
• California passed A.B. 2017 with similar but expanded provisions in September 2026, allowing K–12 government schools to establish local agreements with municipalities to close down in observance of the end of Ramadan. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law.³³
• Illinois became the first state, under Governor J. B. Pritzker, to mandate halal meals in K–12 government schools and facilities with S.B. 457.³⁴
• The New York Senate introduced legislation mandating that New York schools serve halal meals once a school’s student population becomes 10 percent Muslim.³⁵
• The Texas House introduced legislation mandating that K–12 government schools provide halal meals upon request.³⁶

More widespread than legislative force is the cultural push—often by political progressives—to embrace Islam as part of the budding Red-Green Alliance. For instance, a Nashville government school recently reserved special space for Muslim students to engage in salah (Islamic prayer) during Ramadan,³⁷ despite decades of progressive legal efforts arguing that prayer in schools, particularly from Christians, violates the American legal doctrine of the separation of church and state. In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani used official city government resources to commemorate “Nakba Day” in solidarity with Hamas and other violent Islamic groups in Gaza.³⁸ 

These state submissions to Islamic doctrine, ideology, and culture follow developments in numerous local enclaves in towns and cities such as Hamtramck, Michigan;³⁹ Minneapolis, Minnesota;⁴⁰ and Josephine, Texas,⁴¹ where policies that amount to de facto Sharia law are already in place. The stories of Islamic suppression of the constitutional order in communities such as these are numerous and disturbing. Whether it is secret Islamic tribunals in Dallas, Texas, enforcing Sharia law over existing U.S. civil law practices⁴² or honor killings for alleged apostasy in Ohio,⁴³ the trend is undeniable: Muslims are subverting America’s constitutional system with the aim of destroying the republic as we know it.

When Americans first became aware of the threat posed by critical theory and wokeness after the Black Lives Matter movement, many citizens realized that the classical liberal notion of a neutral public square simply did not exist. If political conservatives and Christians cede or abandon the public domain by choosing not to defend their values, actual authoritarians will gladly fill that vacuum and impose their ideology. The irony, of course, is that secular progressives have long sought to push Christians out of the public square, even as they now welcome Islam into the fold.

Nevertheless, the gradual adoption by many Christian leaders of a flawed laissez-faire approach to culture and politics—alongside self-destructive globalist policies on immigration and refugees—is precisely how the Marxist-Islamic coalition has gained a foothold across the United States. Only a full-throated, well-organized response from policymakers, institutions, and American citizens can stop this threat before it metastasizes into something far more dangerous, as is occurring in Western Europe. 

The Public Funding Pipeline: Taxpayer Dollars Flowing to Islamic Centers and Affiliated NGOs

Federal, state, and local governments routinely channel public funds to mosques, Islamic centers, and affiliated Islamic NGOs. These funding sources typically originate as competitive or formula grants for ostensibly secular “community services.” These awards support security services, education and day care, domestic violence shelters and housing, clinics, food programs, and general operations. 

Much of the money is federal in origin (from, for example, DHS’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program [NSGP], USDA’s school lunch programs, and programs run by HHS and HUD) but administered or subawarded by state and local agencies. Local appropriations also occur. These grants are awarded across the country but are most visible in states such as Texas and Michigan, where Islamic centers and their social-service arms have become regular grantees while retaining explicit religious missions and, in documented cases, hosting speakers or advancing ideologies at odds with the constitutional order. 

Islamic centers have worked their way into the web of local-government social-service entities. They are entrenching themselves in communities, and this process (while not large in dollar figures) makes them part of established social services, protecting them from efforts to dislodge them. 

The NSGP, a federal DHS and FEMA initiative administered by state agencies, has provided hundreds of thousands of dollars for physical security upgrades at mosques. The Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan, received $71,250 in 2013 and $75,000 in 2016 in NSGP funds through the Michigan State Police.⁴⁴ From 2020 to 2022, the same center received $212,000 from the Michigan Department of Education under the state’s Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) for preschool services.⁴⁵ 

In Texas, the Middle East Forum has documented roughly $13 million in combined federal and state monies flowing through state agencies to Islamic organizations between approximately 2015 and 2025; twelve of the eighteen recipients (accounting for nearly all of the funds) were assessed as having varying degrees of Islamic influence or ties.⁴⁶ Recipients include the Islamic Education Center of Houston ($485,000, 2021–2023), the Islamic Center of Greater Austin ($150,000), the Clear Lake Islamic Center ($86,000 since 2023, largely through the governor’s office), and the Muslim Community Center for Human Services ($476,000 for clinic operations).⁴⁷

The largest single recipient in the state has been the Texas Muslim Women’s Foundation (TMWF) in Plano, which has received more than $11 million over roughly a decade for domestic-violence emergency shelters, transitional and rapid rehousing, case management, counseling, and related services.⁴⁸ Specific awards include HHS Administration for Children and Families grants (approximately $429,000 for trauma-informed care) and HUD Continuum of Care funds (hundreds of thousands of dollars for housing).⁴⁹ Form 990 filings show government grants constituting a major share of TMWF revenue in recent years.⁵⁰ The organization has platformed speakers with records of support for figures linked to terrorism.⁵¹ Local governments have also participated: The city of Plano has allocated HUD Community Development Block Grant and related funds to TMWF, including awards in its 2025–2026 Action Plan.⁵²

State education agencies have awarded preschool and school-related funds directly to Islamic institutions. Beyond the Michigan GSRP example noted above, Texas Workforce Commission Coronavirus Relief Fund monies supported the Foundation to Advance Islamic Teaching in Houston ($306,000 in 2023).⁵³ Islamic centers operate free clinics, food pantries, and financial-aid programs that attract or facilitate public support. The East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) has received approximately $219,000 from the city of Plano since 2016 (including a $142,921 award in May 2025), and the Islamic Association of Collin County received roughly $1 million across multiple city grants in 2017 and 2020.⁵⁴ EPIC and similar centers run free medical clinics, soup kitchens, and transitional support that position them as community-service providers eligible for local and pass-through federal dollars.⁵⁵ Broader USDA National School Lunch Program subawards coordinated through state education departments have delivered large sums to Islamic centers such as the Islamic Center of Detroit.⁵⁶

Analysis: Meeting the Threat Head On

America will be a Muslim country. Russia will be a Muslim country. Islam will enter every house.—Imam Uthman ibn Farooq⁵⁷

Islam and Sharia law are as inseparable as are Marxism and government control over the means of production. As the immensely influential twentieth-century Islamic thinker Seyyid Qutb outlined in his book Milestones, Sharia extends far beyond mere religious interpretation:

In the Islamic concept, the sovereignty of God means not merely that one should derive all legal injunctions from God and judge according to these injunctions; in Islam the meaning of the Shari’ah is not limited to mere legal injunctions, but includes the principles of administration, its system and its modes. This narrow meaning (i.e., that the Shari’ah is limited to legal injunctions) does not apply to the Shari’ah nor does it correspond to the Islamic concept. By the Shari’ah of God is meant everything legislated by God for ordering man’s life; it includes the principles of belief, principles of administration and justice, principles of morality and human relationships, and principles of knowledge.⁵⁸ 

Put a different way, Sharia law is the infusion of Islam’s religious tenets with its primary political and ideological practices. It can and will use the First Amendment to gain a foothold in a biblically rooted constitutional republic such as the United States, but it cannot tolerate the existence of freedom of religion or freedom of speech once Islam has reached a critical mass within the populace. To a follower of Sharia law, the First Amendment, like every other facet of the constitutional order, is viewed as a human construct. Sharia law is internalized as divine command.⁵⁹ For Muslims, one obviously supersedes the other, which is why shadow Sharia courts are prominent in Western Europe⁶⁰ and are increasingly common in Muslim enclaves in the United States.⁶¹

So what are Americans to do with millions of people who cannot in truth swear allegiance to the republic, whose values are at war with the constitutional order in which they live, whose political ideology and religious ethos require all people to submit before them or face conquest and possible death, and whose practices are presumably protected under the very system they seek to eradicate?

The Florida-Plus Approach

Drawing inspiration from the example of Florida’s anti-Sharia legislation, lawmakers and citizens should set the appropriate contours to curb Islam’s dangers and excesses under existing statutory and widely agreed-upon legal understandings. This means using legislative power (and executive power where possible and appropriate) to plug existing policy holes that currently allow Islam’s totalizing ambitions to weave their way into the American social fabric. Specific state-based policies that should be enacted include

• Prohibiting Foreign Religious Laws: Following the example of Florida’s H.B. 1471, states should adopt legislation that bars courts from applying or enforcing foreign or religious laws that contravene the American constitutional order. The legislation should explicitly identify and include Sharia law as one of the foreign laws incompatible with the constitutional order. Violations of such provisions should include a trigger provision that initiates a process to remove a sitting jurist.
• Banning Shadow Legal Tribunals: States should adopt legislation that criminalizes any effort to claim state-court authority, subvert state-court authority, or coerce individuals into taking part in a shadow legal system.
• Focusing Terror Designation Powers: Following the example of Florida’s H.B. 1471, states should adopt legislation that creates a process for designating entities as foreign or domestic terrorist organizations. The legislation should be specifically geared toward ideologies and organizations that explicitly, directly, or indirectly aim to overthrow the constitutional order with violence, force, or political subversion.
• Tracking Islamic Religious Violence: States should require teachers, doctors, and counselors to report suspected female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and honor-killing threats in a manner similar to current requirements for reporting child abuse. The legislation should also require tracking these cases in state crime data.
• Setting Higher Education Campus Guardrails: Following the example of Florida’s H.B. 1471, states should adopt legislation that prohibits and penalizes universities that employ, contract with, or accept funds from entities designated as foreign or domestic terrorist organizations. The legislation should follow Florida’s model and implement reporting requirements on schools with students on visas who may be affiliated with or promoting designated foreign and domestic terrorist organizations. The mandate should include the immediate expulsion of such students and notification to the U.S. Department of State.
• Implementing Higher Education Curricula Control: Beyond existing statutory provisions, states should adopt legislation that enacts targeted curricula controls for taxpayer-funded universities. This means setting standards that emphasize degrees that develop both virtue-oriented citizens and high-value workers. Legislators should prohibit universities from implementing courses that promote or advance critical theory, colonial theory, and other radical ideologies that sustain Islam-sympathetic academics and institutions, thus softening the societal ground for acceptance of a conquest-minded Islamic ideology.
• Adopting Citizen-Focused Higher Education and Workforce Prioritization: States should adopt policies requiring taxpayer-funded universities and state workforce development programs to prioritize U.S. citizens over foreign worker–visa and student-visa holders for both enrollment in and admission to specific programs. Legislatures should consider requiring taxpayer-funded higher education institutions to significantly cap or tighten restrictions on international student enrollment to prevent American families from bankrolling access and third-world activism for foreign citizens untethered to the republic’s well-being.  
• Mandating Noise Ordinance Provisions: States should adopt policies that empower or require municipalities to adopt noise ordinances that prohibit electronically amplified or vocal calls above certain decibel levels in residential areas. States should grant specific exemptions for unamplified acoustics that serve a nonreligious purpose, such as notifying citizens of the time (e.g., church bells).
• Eliminating Taxpayer-Funded Special Meals: States should adopt policies prohibiting taxpayer-funded K–12 government schools or institutions from providing special catered meals for specific religious, ethnic, cultural, or ideological groups. If private third parties want to raise money to provide such meals in arrangements with school systems and government agencies, that is a legitimate civic function. But taxpayers should not be forced to fund special meals for government-preferred social groups.
• Constraining Taxpayer Funds: States should adopt policies that prohibit state and local agencies from awarding grants, contracts, or subawards to entities designated under state law as foreign or domestic terrorist organizations, or to facilities and programs that primarily benefit such entities.
• Tightening Eligibility Rules: States should condition eligibility for education, day-care, and preschool funds on demonstrated adherence to state academic standards free of foreign religious legal codes and require transparency on any religious instruction embedded in taxpayer-supported programs.
• Requiring Agency Audits: States should require state agencies to publicly report annually on all awards to religiously affiliated organizations, with particular attention to Islamic centers and their social-service affiliates, to enable legislative oversight. Additional statutory provisions should require either the state auditor or inspector general to audit every grant to a religious nonprofit.
• Removing Special Tax Exemptions: States should strip property tax and sales and use tax exemptions from groups tied to designated foreign or domestic terrorist organizations. Statutory provisions should cut off special tax exemptions or taxpayer-funded grants to groups that receive more than 10 percent of their funding from foreign sources without disclosing it.
• Barring Certain School Choice Recipients: States should adopt provisions that prevent education savings accounts, tax-credit scholarships, or other school choice funding mechanisms from going to schools that are tied to designated foreign or domestic terror groups or that teach, promote, elevate, or adopt policies or curricula that undermine, subvert, or seek to replace the constitutional order. 
• Vetting Prison Programs: States should prohibit prison volunteers from groups tied to designated foreign or domestic terror organizations or that teach, promote, elevate, or adopt policies or beliefs that undermine, subvert, or seek to replace the constitutional order.
• Establishing Regional Prosecutors and Courts: States should consider creating a regional prosecutor program and court system that will take action where a local district attorney will not. This will circumvent Soros-backed district attorneys and provide citizens with an additional layer of protection and recourse from officials who support or turn a blind eye to the destructive agenda of the Red-Green Alliance.

Local Efforts

At the local level, municipal and county officials should strengthen noise ordinance policies preemptively, reinforcing state-level mandates with additional protections for citizens against Islamic practices. They should also take aggressive action on zoning laws and land-use ordinances. Specifically, state subdivisions and municipalities should consider adopting land-use policies and zoning provisions that preserve the historical character of the city, town, or neighborhood where a mosque or Islamic center may one day be proposed. Local authorities often have much greater flexibility than state or federal governments to define their town or city’s contours using religiously neutral language that can protect the municipality from Islamification without triggering First Amendment violations. 

For example, a city council could implement policies to preserve a neighborhood’s architectural layout, such as designating a historic district to ensure all buildings maintain a Victorian-era design or requiring structures in a certain area to adhere to the town’s traditions and roots. In many places, those traditions and roots draw directly on historical documents, ensuring that all structures in the designated area preserve the city’s specified character.

However, municipalities must act preemptively through land use and zoning ordinances to avoid violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed by Congress in 2000. This law prohibits local ordinances from discriminating against religious assemblies or institutions, requires equal treatment for religious and nonreligious structures, and imposes a substantial burden test that requires a locality to prove the ordinance is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.⁶² Until federal statutory reforms are enacted or revisited, preemption is a municipality’s best bet for avoiding a violation of this law.

Municipalities in states that have passed a law similar to Florida’s H.B. 1471 should also consider passing local ordinances that prohibit government grants, contracts, or permitting approvals for facilities that could reasonably be construed as directly benefiting an organization or entity designated under state law as a foreign or domestic terrorist group. Further, municipalities could adopt a provision disqualifying developers from receiving local government contracts for a set period (say, up to five years) if they have accepted a contract that benefited an entity designated under state law as a foreign or domestic terrorist group.

Municipalities should also consider adopting ordinances that prohibit blocking public rights-of-way and movement for mass gatherings or prayer calls. Many cities already have such provisions, and they often require permits for events or gatherings that block streets or public access. But it’s important to prevent displays of cultural or political dominance that come from mass salah prayers, which shut down roads and sidewalks. Such displays have occurred throughout Europe and in some Canadian provinces. Policies should never prohibit worship or prayer in public—that would clearly violate the First Amendment—but demonstrations that impede people or vehicles from moving freely should be illegal.

Lastly, municipalities should adopt ordinances requiring public notice and hearings before approving the construction of a house of worship. Other transparency provisions should include notification to residents of the list of contractors or developers who have bid on such projects.

These policies would shore up institutional safeguards to prevent Islam’s continued fusion into the American social fabric—a fusion that poses an existential threat to the life, liberty, and happiness of American citizens.

The Long Game: Restoration and Resoluteness

President John Adams pointed to a deep truth when he wrote in a 1798 letter to a Massachusetts militia that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”⁶³ Apologists for Islam, secular pluralists, and even many self-described constitutional conservatives will contend that Adams’s statement includes Muslims as either a moral or a religious people. On the surface, this view may be reasonable, and many Americans likely hold it. However, modern interpretations of First Amendment protections rarely consider the context of Adams’s statement. 

The American founders conceived of the free exercise of religion almost entirely in the context of Christian denominations, a heritage traced back to the Pilgrims’ arrival fleeing religious persecution under the Church of England. Their familiarity with Eastern religions was minimal, as shown in the 1786 letter that envoys Adams and Thomas Jefferson sent to John Jay concerning the attacks carried out by the Muslim Barbary pirates. In the letter, the two future presidents described their attempt to understand the violent actions of the Islamic nation as follows:

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.⁶⁴

Based on that letter alone, it is safe to state that the author of the Declaration of Independence and the United States’ soon-to-be first vice president were perplexed by the conquering, violent ideology of Islam. 

Overwhelming evidence shows that the United States’ constitutional order was rooted in the Christian faith. This view is on display in Adams’s unequivocal statement that “the general Principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite . . . and what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity.”⁶⁵ Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration and surgeon general of the Continental Army, described America’s constitutional order in this way: “I do not believe the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.”⁶⁶ 

Congressman and later Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story reinforced: “One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the common law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. I verily believe that Christianity is necessary to support a civil society and shall ever attend to its institutions and acknowledge its precepts as the pure and natural sources of private and social happiness.”⁶⁷ Famed political writer and lexicographer Noah Webster put it more succinctly: “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles. . . . This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.”⁶⁸

Reestablishing and rediscovering these truths—in particular, that American freedom requires the preeminence of Christianity within the body politic—is essential. Mending the fraying fabric of America’s increasingly secular and atheistic civil society will require concerted efforts from citizens, lawmakers, and institutions, including bold, reform-minded seminarians within American churches, to counter the misguided progressive views that have led the nation into multigenerational confusion and chaos. This will require more aggressive action to build a meticulous case against Islam’s integration into American society, while simultaneously reinvigorating a robust Christianity. 

As the Center for Renewing America has recently argued regarding prospective members of Congress,⁶⁹ actions should ensure that the oath of office has substantive force at all levels of government. Congress cannot exclude someone from taking office because he or she is Muslim, opposes Christianity, or holds Islamic beliefs, as that is a clear violation of Article VI of the Constitution. However, state lawmakers should also consider policies that refuse to seat an individual when someone elected to the legislature has personally embraced the destruction of the constitutional order, whether in public statements or actions or through direct membership in groups dedicated to that cause. 

This effort will certainly trigger legal action, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in cases such as Elfbrandt v. Russell⁷⁰ and Keyishian v. Board of Regents,⁷¹ which held that mere association with subversive groups is protected speech and struck down loyalty oaths in both Arizona and New York. However, the oath of office cannot be reduced to a perfunctory box-checking exercise, especially when individuals cannot truthfully swear to support that oath as a condition of taking office. The time to reassess the court’s previous rulings is drawing near.

Further, the currently understood position with regard to Islam, Article VI of the Constitution, and the First Amendment is ultimately a death pact for the American way of life. The courts have largely maintained a jurisprudence rooted in a Christian constitutional order within a high-trust society that shared the same classically liberal principles ushered in by both the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Yet the decades-long march of pluralism and secular progressivism through America’s institutions has diluted that societal homogeneity, leaving the Christian constitutional order largely dormant. This dormancy now provides fertile, nurturing soil for Islam’s rise, allowing the growth of its political and divine mandate to impose an authoritarian, government-imposed ideological despotism throughout American society. 

Simply put, Islam is an ideological dagger aimed at our nation’s heart, not a religion deserving of our constitutional protections. Without a robust, civilizational-level response, that dagger may well hit its target.

Conclusion

The United States’ political system has proven incredibly sturdy, enduring now for 250 years. Yet, even a constitutional order as strong as this one can only withstand so much abuse before it begins to crack. Those cracks are widening as neo-Marxist progressives join with Muslims in an attempt to supplant both the form and substance of our republic. 

Sooner rather than later, the reality of Islam as a uniquely destructive political ideology will crash against the modern universalist interpretations of the First Amendment. The political left is actively courting and embracing Islam’s growing power and influence inside the United States as part of its Red-Green political coalition, which is driving a radical anticonstitutional third-worldism on campuses and in cities across the nation. This coalition will usher in dangerous leaders.

To stop Islam’s subversive intentions, states and local leaders will have to act to defend their people. Institutions will have to be recaptured. Organizations will have to be formed. Citizens will have to be engaged and activated. Courts will have to be challenged. And resoluteness against this unique and growing threat will have to animate Christians, conservatives, and patriotic Americans in both public policy and politics. 

At stake is nothing less than the survival of the United States as a virtuous, free nation.

Endnotes

1. Miller, W. (July 30, 2026). “Policy Brief: Assessing the Marxist-Muslim Alliance Aimed at America’s Heart,” Center for Renewing America. https://americarenewing.com/issues/policy-brief-assessing-the-marxist-muslim-alliance-aimed-at-americas-heart/ 

2. CRA Staff (December 9, 2025). “Policy Brief: The Threat of Radical Islam and Sharia Law,” Center for Renewing America. https://americarenewing.com/issues/policy-brief-the-threat-of-radical-islam-and-sharia-law/ 

3. Mohammed, B. (September 3, 2026). “25 Years After 9/11, a Portrait of Muslim Americans,” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/09/03/25-years-after-9-11-a-portrait-of-muslim-americans/ 

4. Ibid.

5. Pew Research Report (April 14, 2018). “Muslims in America: Immigrants and Those Born in U.S. See Life Differently in Many Ways,” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/04/14/muslims-in-america-immigrants-and-those-born-in-u-s-see-life-differently-in-many-ways/ 

6. Bagby, I. (June 2, 2020). “American Mosque Survey 2020 Report 1,” Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. https://ispu.org/reports-and-analysis/report-1-mosque-survey-2020/ 

7. Associated Press Report (August 17, 2007). “U.S. Troops Battle Insurgents in Mosque,” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-troops-battle-insurgents-in-mosque/ 

8. Khalilieh, H. (February 16, 2026). “Guardian of Faith: Ibn Taymiyya’s Theological Discourse on Frontier Garrisoning Versus Pious Residence in Mecca,” Al-Masaq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/09503110.2026.2617798  

9. McCoy, T. (July 31, 2014). “Why Hamas Stores Its Weapons Inside Hospitals, Mosques, and Schools,” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/31/why-hamas-stores-its-weapons-inside-hospitals-mosques-and-schools/

10. Abednego, B. (August 1, 2006). “The Mosque and Its Role in Society,” The Ezra Institute. https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resources/the-mosque-and-its-role-in-society 

11. Grierson, J. (August 23, 2018). “Mosque Where Terrorist Taught Stripped of Responsibilities for Children,” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/23/mosque-where-terrorist-taught-stripped-of-responsibilities-for-children 

12. Barr, A. (November 3, 2010). “Oklahoma Bans Sharia Law,” Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/oklahoma-bans-sharia-law-044630 

13. Siegel, J. (June 14, 2010). “Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, Ah, Oklahoma,” ABC News. https://abcnews.com/US/Media/oklahoma-pass-laws-prohibiting-islamic-sharia-laws-apply/story?id=10908521 

14. Ibid. 

15. Statistical Compendium (2021). “British Muslims in Numbers: Census Report,” Muslim Council of Britain. https://mcb.org.uk/censusreport/ 

16. Ibid. 

17. Fishman, G. (August 26, 2026). “UK Rape Gangs: Could It Happen Here?,” Center for Immigration Studies. https://cis.org/Fishman/UK-Rape-Gangs-Could-It-Happen-Here 

18. Hymas, C. (August 25, 2026). “Protestors Arrested For ‘F— Islam’ Sign in Revival of Blasphemy Law Row,” The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/25/protesters-arrested-for-sign-revival-of-blasphemy-law-row/  

19. Rodan-Benzaquen, S. (October 5, 2026). “Why France Is Burning,” The Free Press. https://www.thefp.com/p/france-student-protests-melenchon 

20. I24 Report (October 3, 2026). “Riots Spread from Paris’s Immigrant Suburbs Across France,” i24 News. https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/artc-riots-spread-across-france-from-paris-suburbs-with-large-immigrant-populations 

21. Lachter, E. (October 6, 2026). “Trump, Waltz Link France Riots to Mass Immigration as Thousands Are Arrested,” Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/world/trump-waltz-link-france-riots-mass-immigration-thousands-arrested 

22. Pew Research Report (April 8, 2013). “State Legislation Restricting Judicial Consideration of Foreign or Religious Law, 2010-2012,” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/04/State-legislation-restricting-foreign-or-religious-law.pdf 

23. Reuters Report (January 10, 2012). “Court Sets Back Oklahoma’s Ban on Islamic Law,” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/court-sets-back-oklahomas-ban-on-islamic-law-idUSTRE80A00C/

24. Awad v. Ziriax (January 10, 2012). 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. No. 10-6273  

25. Congressional Testimony of Stephen M. Gele (February 10, 2026). “Why Political Islam and Sharia Law Are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution,” Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government of the Committee on the Judiciary. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/gele-testimony.pdf 

26. H.B. 695. Died in Committee. North Carolina State House. https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H695v4.pdf 

27. Weiss, D. (November 5, 2014). “Alabama Becomes Seventh State to Ban Foreign Law,” American Bar Association Journal. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/alabama_becomes_seventh_state_to_ban_foreign_law 

28. H.B. 1041. Arkansas Act 980. Arkansas General Assembly. https://legiscan.com/AR/text/HB1041/id/1588894 

29. Boorstein, M. and Hacker, C. (October 8, 2026). “U.S. States Don’t Have Sharia Law. But Bills to Ban It Are Still Spiking,” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2026/10/08/anti-sharia-law-bills-punditry-are-spiking-us-post-analysis-found/ 

30. H.B. 1471. Chapter No. 2026-28. Florida State Legislature. https://legiscan.com/FL/text/H1471/id/3393154 

31. Matat, S. (September 29, 2026). “Florida OKs Terror Designations for CAIR, Antifa, Muslim Brotherhood,” The Tallahassee Democrat. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/state/2026/09/29/cair-antifa-muslim-brotherhood-now-labeled-terrorists-in-florida/92001957007/  

32. Press Release (April 9, 2025). “Governor Bob Ferguson Signs Historic Bill Officially Recognizing Eid Holidays,” Office of Governor Bob Ferguson. https://governor.wa.gov/news/2025/governor-bob-ferguson-signs-historic-bill-officially-recognizing-eid-holidays 

33. Kornick, L. (October 1, 2026). “Gavin Newsom Signs Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha into Law as New California State Holidays,” Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/media/gavin-newsom-signs-eid-al-fitr-eid-al-adha-law-new-california-state-holidays 

34. Delandro, T. (March 24, 2025). “Illinois Mandates Halal, Kosher Meal Options in State Facilities,” NewsNation. https://www.newsnationnow.com/entertainment-news/food/illinois-halal-kosher-meals-state-facilities/ 

35. SB 1094. Introduced January 8, 2025. New York State Senate. https://legiscan.com/NY/text/S01094/id/3042817 

36. H.B. 625. Introduced March 4, 2025. Texas State House. https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB625/2025 

37. Parks, K. (April 9, 2026). “Nashville Public School Excuses Muslim Students for Daily Prayer Time During Ramadan,” Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/media/nashville-public-school-excuses-muslim-students-daily-prayer-time-ramadan 

38. Fierick, H. (May 18, 2026). “Mamdani Doubles Down on Nakba Video, Brushes Off Snubs to His ‘Jewish Heritage’ Event,” New York Post. https://nypost.com/2026/05/18/us-news/mamdani-doubles-down-on-nakba-video-brushes-off-snubs-to-his-jewish-heritage-event/ 

39. Carlisle, J. (May 27, 2025). “How Hamtramck, a Small Town Within Detroit, Became America’s First Muslim-Majority City,” The Detroit Free Press. https://www.freep.com/story/news/columnists/john-carlisle/2025/05/27/hamtramck-michigan-wiki-history-immigration/78509953007/ 

40. Associated Press Report (April 14, 2023). “Minneapolis Becomes First Major U.S. City to Broadcast Islamic Call to Prayer 5 Times Per Day,” PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/minneapolis-becomes-first-major-u-s-city-to-broadcast-islamic-call-to-prayer-5-times-per-day 

41. Fullerton, A. and Ardary, S. (May 12, 2025). “Muslim-Centered EPIC City Now Under DOJ Investigation, Sen. Cornyn Says,” Fox 4 KDFW News. https://www.fox4news.com/news/epic-city-doj-investigation 

42. McIlvenna, P. (December 1, 2025). “Shariah Courts in America,” The Washington Times. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/dec/1/shariah-courts-america/ 

43. Netter, S. (August 12, 2009). “Christian Teen Flees Home, Says She Fears Honor Killing by Muslim Father,” ABC News. https://abcnews.com/US/story?id=8303567&page=1 

44. Van Zile, D. and Ayoub, A. (March 27, 2024). “U.S. Taxpayers Funding Anti-American Mosque in Michigan,” Focus on Western Islamism. https://www.meforum.org/us-taxpayers-funding-anti-american-mosque-in

45. Ibid.

46. Westrop, S. (June 10, 2025). “Texas State Government Gives $13 Million to Islamist Mosques and Community Groups,” Middle East Forum. https://www.meforum.org/fwi/fwi-research/texas-state-government-gives-13-million-to-islamist-mosques-and-community-groups

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.; confirmed in part by USAspending.gov awards to Texas Muslim Women’s Foundation (e.g., FAIN 90EV0598, HHS Administration for Children and Families) and HUD Continuum of Care records. See USAspending.gov Report (Accessed November 9, 2026). “Grant Summary: FAIN 90EVO598,” USAspending.gov.https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_90EV0598_075

49. See ibid. 

50. Form 990 Report (Accessed November 9, 2026). “Texas Muslim Women’s Foundation Inc,” ProPublica. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/203060929; CauseIQ Report (Accessed November 9, 2026). “Texas Muslim Womens Foundation (TMWF),” CauseIQ. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/texas-muslim-womens-foundation,203060929/

51. Middle East Forum reporting on TMWF events and invited speakers (see Texas $13M report above).

52. Citizen Portal Report (July 28, 2025). “Plano Approves 2025–26 HUD Action Plan; Debate Centers on Grant to Texas Muslim Women’s Foundation,” Citizen Portal. https://www.citizenportal.ai/articles/6153878/Plano/Collin-County/Texas/Plano-approves-202526-HUD-action-plan-debate-centers-on-grant-to-Texas-Muslim-Womens-Foundation

53. Middle East Forum Texas report (Texas Workforce Commission Coronavirus Relief Fund). See note 46.

54. Westrop, S. (June 5, 2025). “Plano, Texas, Hands $1.2 Million to Radical Terror-Aligned Charities,” Middle East Forum. https://www.meforum.org/fwi/fwi-research/fwi-government-funding-of-islamism/plano-tx-hands-1-2-million-of-taxpayers-money-to-radical-mosques-and-terror-supporting-charities

55. EPIC public materials on clinic and social services; City of Plano grant records (see note 52).

56. Middle East Forum analyses of USDA National School Lunch Program subawards coordinated through the Michigan Department of Education. See related reporting on Islamic Center of Detroit funding.

57. Instagram Video (June 20, 2026). “Video of Pakistani-American Islamic Preacher,” Geo Wire Daily. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZzQ_HDJuo2/?hl=en 

58. Qutb, S. (1964). Milestones. 107 

59. Yousef, M. (June 29, 2026). “Is Islam Compatible with Western Values?,” Christ Over All. https://christoverall.com/article/concise/is-islam-compatible-with-western-values/ 

60. Goss, L. (September 6, 2025). “‘Shadow System’ of Sharia Courts Challenges British Justice,” The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/09/06/shadow-system-of-sharia-courts-challenges-british-justice/ 

61. Waltens, B. (April 6, 2026). “Texas ‘Islamic Tribunal’ Under Investigation over Sharia Law Court Claims,” Texas Scorecard. https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-islamic-tribunal-under-investigation-over-sharia-law-court-claims/ 

62. Brougher, C. (October 20, 2008). “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20081020_RL32514_169c839c09c9a59918e8e39e7ccdee20269d3af6.pdf 

63. Adams, J. (October 11, 1798). “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798,” National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102 

64. Adams, J. and Jefferson, T. (March 28, 1786). “Letter from American Commissioners to John Jay,” National Archives.  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-18-02-0115  

65. Adams, J. (June 28, 1813). “Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson,” National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208 

66. Rush, B. to Boudinot, E. (July 9, 1788). Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Princeton, New Jersey: American Philosophical Society, 1951)

67. Story, J., Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William W. Story (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851)

68. Webster, N., History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1833) 273–74 

69. Osborne, B. (October 6, 2026). “Can Congress Seat a Member-Elect Who Vows to Destroy Our Constitution?,” Center for Renewing America. https://americarenewing.com/issues/can-congress-seat-a-member-elect-who-vows-to-destroy-our-constitution/ 

70. Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966). 384 U.S. 11 

71. Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967). 385 U.S. 589