Without a Border ‘Invasion,’ Texas G.O.P. Turns to an Old Enemy, Islam – The New York Times

In the weeks before Feb. 10, 2026, leading Texas Republicans shifted public attacks from the U.S.-Mexico border to the state’s Muslim community, linking their rhetoric to fears first amplified after Sept. 11, 2001. The pivot has included campaign ads, a new congressional caucus labeled against “Sharia,” a high-profile fundraising dinner north of Dallas, and a state attorney general inquiry into a proposed development in Kaufman County. The moves have unsettled Muslim residents in Plano and elsewhere while offering Republicans a new mobilizing theme now that border crossings have slowed.

Key Takeaways

• On Feb. 10, 2026 reporting showed Texas Republicans expanding anti-Muslim messages after border-focused warnings lost urgency under the current administration.
• Senator John Cornyn’s ads have cited a fight against “radical Islam,” signaling national campaign messaging from a Texas incumbent.
• Texas Republicans in Congress formed a “Sharia-Free America Caucus,” and the State Senate is considering legislation urged by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to guard against Sharia law.
• Gov. Greg Abbott publicly labeled a major Muslim rights organization a terror group, a step that prompted criticism and legal questions.
• A “Save Texas from Radical Islam” dinner near Dallas in January 2026 featured Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck and Geert Wilders and drew party activists and Texas House members.
• On Feb. 9, 2026, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an inquiry into a proposed Kaufman County development described by some opponents as a potential “Sharia City.”
• Muslim residents near a Plano mosque report heightened alarm and concern for safety as the rhetoric intensifies in suburbs experiencing demographic growth.

Background

For several election cycles, the southern border was the dominant political theme for Texas Republicans, with warnings about migrant “caravans” and a perceived security crisis driving turnout. Those messages lost momentum after the federal administration tightened border policies and crossings fell, leaving a rhetorical gap for state and national GOP strategists. Texas’s Muslim population has grown in recent decades, concentrated in urban and suburban pockets such as Plano, creating new local flashpoints where development and religious life intersect.

Post-9/11 memories of threats framed national debates on Islam for years; the current Texas shift resurrects similar language while repurposing it for present political needs. Elected officials and activists who once emphasized immigration enforcement are directing attention toward religion-based security claims and cultural concerns. Stakeholders include state executives, congressional Republicans from Texas, conservative media figures, local Muslim communities, civil liberties groups and municipal planners facing development disputes.

Main Event

The tactical shift manifested in multiple coordinated actions: campaign ads from a sitting senator, the formation of a congressional caucus explicitly opposing Sharia, and public events that brought high-profile right-wing figures to Texas. The January 2026 “Save Texas from Radical Islam” dinner north of Dallas attracted national personalities—Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck and Geert Wilders—and signaled interest from party activists and some state lawmakers. Those appearances amplified messaging that frames Islam as a political and cultural threat rather than a religious minority.

Governor Greg Abbott publicly designated a leading Muslim-rights organization as a terror group, an assertion that drew immediate legal and civil-rights scrutiny. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick requested legislation aimed at preventing any form of Sharia governance, and the State Senate is weighing measures to that effect. On Feb. 9, 2026, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into a planned real-estate development in Kaufman County described by critics as a possible “Sharia City,” a label that developers and local officials dispute.

In Plano and surrounding suburbs, new housing developments near mosques have become campaign focal points. Residents and worship leaders say they have noticed increased scrutiny and sometimes hostile attention; local GOP figures argue they are answering constituent safety concerns. Municipal officials face competing pressures: to defend property rights and zoning decisions while responding to heightened political attention that can inflame local tensions.

Analysis & Implications

The rhetorical shift reflects a pragmatic calculation: with border anxieties less salient, Republican operatives in Texas are testing whether anti-Muslim themes can reproduce turnout and fundraising effects. Historically, appeals that single out religious minorities can mobilize base voters but risk alienating moderates and independent suburbanites—voters who are often decisive in statewide contests. The presence of high-profile national right-wing figures suggests the strategy aims to nationalize the issue beyond Texas.

Legally and administratively, labeling a civil-rights organization as a terror group and opening inquiries into private development raise constitutional and civil-liberties questions. If state agencies pursue investigations or legislation based on religious criteria, courts could face First Amendment challenges; federal civil-rights monitors and national advocacy groups are likely to respond. The cost of litigation and political backlash could undercut any short-term mobilization gains.

Politically, the move may reshape GOP coalition dynamics: it could solidify support among hard-right voters while risking defections among suburban Republicans and minority voters. For Democrats and civil-rights organizations, the shift provides a new organizing issue and a platform to portray Republican proposals as discriminatory. National implications include potential replication of tactics in other states where border rhetoric has weakened.

Comparison & Data

The table contrasts themes that have dominated recent GOP messaging in Texas. While border-focused language emphasized cross-border movement and enforcement numbers, the current Islam-focused phase centers on cultural and legal claims tied to religious practice. This is a qualitative shift rather than a numeric one, though it has clear mobilization and litigation consequences.

Reactions & Quotes

Local Muslim leaders and civil-rights organizations have expressed alarm and called for legal protections and community outreach. Their statements frame the new rhetoric as a targeted political strategy with real-world effects for everyday Muslims.

“This rhetoric singles out a faith community and threatens our sense of safety and belonging,”

A community leader at a Plano mosque (paraphrased)

Republican officials defend their actions as protecting Texans and asserting cultural values. They characterize legal inquiries and legislative proposals as precautionary measures to preserve local control and security.

“We are responding to constituent concerns and ensuring no one imposes foreign laws on Texans,”

Texas Republican spokesperson (paraphrased)

Civil liberties observers warn that the campaign may prompt lawsuits and mobilize national advocacy groups. They emphasize constitutional protections and historical parallels to past episodes of religious targeting.

“Policies or probes tied to religious identity invite constitutional scrutiny and community harm,”

Civil-rights analyst (paraphrased)

Unconfirmed

• Whether the Kaufman County development would operate under any version of Sharia law remains unproven; developers deny such plans and no municipal code changes have been reported.
• It is not confirmed that Governor Abbott’s public designation matches any federal terrorism designation or formal intelligence assessment.
• There is no public evidence yet that the described rhetoric will produce the same electoral turnout effects as prior border-focused campaigns.

Bottom Line

Texas Republican leaders have moved to anti-Muslim themes as border anxieties eased, using a mix of ads, events and legal inquiries to shift public attention. That strategy seeks to replicate past political gains but carries legal risks and the possibility of alienating moderate voters in suburban areas that are electorally important.

Observers should watch pending state legislation, the outcome of the Kaufman County inquiry, and any ensuing litigation or federal responses. The evolution of this rhetoric in Texas may foreshadow similar tactics nationally, but its political effectiveness will depend on local reactions, court rulings and whether moderates push back.

Sources

• The New York Times — news report (Feb. 10, 2026)