Trump calls El-Sayed a 'jihadist' as anti-Sharia caucuses gain ground
Republican lawmakers are moving to restrict the role of religious law in courts, following a rally speech by the president.
By Liam O'Connor ·
The definition of Islamic law has become a central point of contention in American politics, with recent legislative moves aiming to limit its influence in the judicial system.
President Donald Trump accused U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed of being a “jihadist” who wants to impose Sharia law in the United States. The president made these remarks at a campaign rally in Port Huron, Michigan, on Oct. 25, 2026. This attack mirrors a pattern among Republican politicians who describe Sharia as a threat to the American legal framework.
The momentum for such rhetoric began in December 2025, when the Sharia Free America Caucus was established in Congress. Within six months, the group grew to include 68 Republican lawmakers from 25 states. In Texas, the movement took a more formal legislative shape in March 2026, when state Rep. Brent Money launched the Sharia Free Texas Caucus. Money characterized Sharia as “an entire civilizational legal structure” that poses a risk to American institutions. That same month, approximately 95% of Texas Republican primary voters supported a nonbinding proposition stating that Texas should prohibit Sharia Law.
Legal scholars note that Sharia is not a single code but a path to a way of living, guided by the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. It covers worship, ethics, and family matters. While it guides personal conduct, it does not require a separate legal court for enforcement. Muslims follow the law of the land where they reside, and their religious practices operate within the existing American legal structure.
The controversy often centers on how courts handle religious contracts. Critics argue that Sharia is gaining a foothold in the judiciary when judges recognize agreements based on Islamic principles. However, courts apply neutral principles of law. For example, in 2020, a Maryland appeals court ruled that a “mahr,” or marriage gift, could be enforced only under standard secular contract law. The court did not interpret Islamic theology; it simply determined whether the agreement was legally valid. This approach mirrors how courts handle voluntary arbitration from other religious groups, such as the beth din for Orthodox Jewish couples.
In June 2026, U.S. Rep. Keith Self of Texas introduced a bill to bar federal courts from enforcing foreign or religious laws that conflict with the Constitution. Proponents argue this protects women’s rights, while critics note that courts already cannot enforce agreements that violate fundamental legal protections. The bill seeks to codify restrictions on how judges consider these religious frameworks in federal cases.
The debate traces back to a wave of state-level legislation between 2010 and 2012, when at least 32 states introduced bills to keep courts from applying Sharia or foreign law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 to bar courts from considering Sharia. A federal appeals court issued an injunction against the measure, finding it likely violated the First Amendment by singling out Islam. A federal judge permanently struck down the amendment in 2013.
