[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SHARIA-FREE AMERICA: WHY POLITICAL
ISLAM & SHARIA LAW ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-735 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia TED LIEU, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey J. LUIS CORREA, California
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
KEVIN KILEY, California SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri Vacancy
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
WESLEY HUNT, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina BECCA BALINT, Vermont
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRANDON GILL, Texas DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas.... 1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 5
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 11
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 8
WITNESSES
Ammon S. Blair, Senior Fellow, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Testimony............................................. 14
Amy Mekelburg, Founder & Editor-in-Chief, RAIR Foundation USA
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Testimony............................................. 19
Marco Hunter-Lopez, Sophomore, Wylie High School, Wylie, Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Testimony............................................. 25
Amanda Tyler, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee for
Religious Liberty (BJC)
Oral Testimony................................................. 28
Prepared Testimony............................................. 30
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Limited Government, for the record......................... 57
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of California, for the record
An article entitled, ``Christian Nationalism and Violence
Against Religious Minorities in the United States: A
Quantitative Analysis,'' Sept. 2, 2024, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion
An article entitled, ``No Quarter? American Evangelicals and
Political Violence,'' May 8, 2026, Public Religion
Research Institute (PRRI)
A report entitled, ``How White Supremacy Returned to
Mainstream Politics,'' Jul. 1, 2020, Center for American
Progress (CAP)
An article entitled, ``Active Clubs are white supremacy's
new, dangerous frontier.'' Aug. 26, 2025, The
Conversation
A statement from Keith Self, Chair, House Foreign Affairs
Committee from the State of Texas, submitted by the Honorable
Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
Limited Government from the State of Texas, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
A statement from Representatives Andre Carson from Indiana,
Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan,
and Lateefah Simon from California, representing the
Muslim American Members of Congress, May 13, 2026
A letter to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair from the State of
Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member
from the State of Pennsylvania, Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government, from multiple
religious organizations, May 12, 2026
A statement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR), May 13, 2026
A statement from the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations
(USCMO), May 13, 2026
A statement from Interfaith Alliance, May 13, 2026
A statement from the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC),
May 14, 2026
An article entitled, ``Wylie ISD investigates how `Why Islam'
group set up on campus without approval,'' Feb. 17, 2026,
CBS News
An article entitled, ``Islamic Society of Orange County under
heightened security after online threats,'' Apr. 17,
2026, LA Times
An article entitled, ``Opinion | I testified before Congress on
the FACE Act--and became a target,'' May 8, 2026, MS Now,
submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the
record
SHARIA-FREE AMERICA: WHY POLITICAL
ISLAM & SHARIA LAW ARE INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: PART II
----------
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Roy, Hageman, Hunt, Grothman,
Harris, Onder, Gill, Jordan, Scanlon, Cohen, Jayapal, Kamlager-
Dove, and Raskin.
Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on sharia-free
America. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today America faces an existential threat. The spread of
sharia law puts the very foundation of our Constitution, our
legal system, and our way of life in serious peril. In
February, this Committee held a hearing on this topic warning
of the threat and incompatibility sharia law poses to the
American people. This Congress should routinely re-examine the
existential threat facing our Republic and how to counter its
spread into our social, societal, and political systems.
The principles of sharia law undermine the cherished
freedoms that countless Americans have suffered and even died
for since our Nation's founding. Let's remind ourselves what
sharia law and political Islam entail. Political Islam silences
dissent, prohibits religious freedom, allows barbaric
punishments, and treats women, children, and non-Muslims as
second-class citizens.
What's more, sharia law and political Islam sanction honor
killings for adultery, death for individuals leaving the
Islamic faith, encourages polygamy for men regardless of the
women's age, allows female non-Muslims to be taken as sex
slaves in war, and permits corporal punishment like stoning and
female genital mutilation for perceived violations.
In fact, the central sacred scripture of Islamic observers,
the Quran, has several martial calls that encourage its
followers to wage war--not just spiritual--against and conquer
non-Muslims:
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 an end. Surah 47:4
It is not a religious code or belief system. It is a
repressive legal regime that betrays America's founding
principles and threatens our Constitution. In fact, it seeks to
replace it. America was founded on the basic concept of
individual freedom and self-governance under the rule of law of
a just and moral law. As John Adams succinctly put it:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
To my colleagues who may conflate critiquing Islam and
sharia as undermining the First Amendment rights of Muslims, I
remind them of the following: People do not have protection
from imposing a foreign legal system or code that overrides or
replaces U.S. civil or criminal law, nor the Constitution. The
Constitution begins with, ``We the People.'' Sharia is the
legal code for Islam and is taught to its observers to be
abided by and enforced.
As Robert H. Jackson, an Associate Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court, who also served as the chief United States
prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, elucidated succinctly how
liberty crushing sharia was the antithesis of Western law.
Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic
contrast . . . its striking features relative to our law are
not likenesses but inconsistencies . . . . In its source, its
scope, and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the
antithesis of Western law.
He was right then, and he would be right today.
The radicals pushing political Islam do not want to coexist
with America's culture and political order. They want to
replace it. But you do not need to take my word for it.
Islamists have stated this clearly themselves. Violent jihadist
Seyyid Qutab, a thought leader of modern jihadists and
spiritual mentor for Osama bin Laden, led the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt and surmised sharia in his book
``Milestones'' as follows:
In Islam the meaning of the sharia is not limited to mere legal
injunctions, but includes the principles of administration, its
system, its modes.
He said,
By the sharia of God is meant everything legislated by God for
ordering man's life.
Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood's motto reads:
Allah is our objective. The prophet is our leader. The Quran is
our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our
highest hope.
Even groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
also known as CAIR, which masquerades as a peaceful nonprofit
advocating for U.S. Muslims and Islam, has a sordid history of
collaborating with bad actors, terror groups, and forcing
sharia in America.
Omar Ahmad, the cofounder and longtime board Chair of CAIR,
said of Islam and its role of America, quote,
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to
become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in
America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.
Just as concerning, CAIR was named as an unindicted
coconspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorism
financing trial. On appeal, United States District Court Judge
Jorge Solis upheld CAIR's coconspirator status and ruled that
the Department of Justice, quote, ``produced ample evidence of
CAIR's association with Hamas.''
A founding member of CAIR's Texas chapter, Ghassan Elashi,
was found guilty in 2009 of money laundering, tax fraud, and
providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist
organization and sentenced to 65 years in prison. What's more
is that CAIR has long been suspected of harboring ties to the
Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the terrorist group responsible
for barbaric October 7, 2023, attacks against our friend and
ally Israel.
The threat posed by political Islam and sharia law is not
some faraway concern. We can look at Europe to see what happens
when nations allow themselves to be invaded and let political
Islam infiltrate their society.
In France, a recent poll found that 44 percent of Muslims
think compliance with Islamic rules is more important than
compliance with French laws.
In the United Kingdom, Muslims are increasingly turning to
sharia courts to settle disputes rather than the U.K.'s legal
system. There are now 85 sharia law courts operating in the
country. In the United Kingdom, Mohammed is now the No. 1 most
popular baby name in the country; and, in Germany, Mohammed is
the most popular baby name among people receiving government
welfare.
Over the past few years, sharia-based legal institutions
have taken root in American communities and nowhere is this
problem worse than in my home State of Texas. Fueled by decades
of an unsecured border and expansionist legal immigration
policies, Texas has seen a sharp increase in immigration from
the Muslim world, with many immigrants trying everything they
can to bring sharia with them.
According to a 2026 report by the Middle East Forum, there
are approximately 650 Islamic nonprofit organizations based in
Texas, and we can see the results. The Qalam Institute, a
Deobandi institution and the leading Islamic seminary in
America, is based in Carrollton, Texas. Its leaders have been--
called American Society ``filth,'' have advocated for the
killing of apostates, and have supported the taking of sex
slaves.
In Houston, the South Asian Islamist movement operates a
powerful and extensive network that works in direct
coordination with the Pakistani regime and Kashmiri terror
operative. An Iranian regime, known as the Khomeinists,
operates several mosques in Texas and supports a number of
proterror activist groups.
In 2024, members of Plano Mosque tried to create their own
Islamic enclave governed by sharia law within the State of
Texas, and they called it EPIC City. Thankfully, office
holders, activists, and private citizens mobilized to try to
stop EPIC City from advancing for the time being. However, as
much of a problem EPIC City poses, sharia has spread to other
parts of Texas, attempting to transform the existing legal,
cultural, and societal structures of these communities.
For example, in January, Texas Tech medical student Mohamad
Altabaa, whose father is a Syrian imam and ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood, bought the Arnett Elementary School campus, an
abandoned school in Lubbock and converted it into the gleaming
Unity Center mosque in 45 days.
In March, taxpayer-funded school buses from Humble ISD took
more than 30 students from Kingwood to the Islamist-Spanish
Centro Islamico in Houston, a controversial dawah center that
glorifies the Islamic conquest of Spain; and claims Latinos'
roots are in Muslim Spain, and seeks to shape the next
generation to view Islam favorably as part of a two-front
strategy to expand sharia's influence in America.
Also in March, a report surfaced that the Islamic Center of
Haltom City, Texas, had acquired and repurposed the former
Christ Way Bible Church, a longstanding Christian site in
Texas. The church was purchased by Ummul Qura Islamic
Foundation, which, according to their own announcements, aims
to transform this traditional church into a vibrant Islamic
center that will serve our community for generations to come.
Just last month in Richardson, Texas, opened Al Ameera
Plaza, a 125,000-square foot office complex that now functions
as a one-stop parallel society where Muslims can fulfill every
daily need under strict sharia-compliant rules with zero
pressure to integrate into the surrounding American culture. I
could list more examples for hours.
Just as alarming, shadow Islamic courts have popped up
across Texas. One Dallas tribunal purports to render final
judgments on disputes in accordance with Islamic jurisprudence,
placing sharia law above both State and Federal law. Both these
attempted community transformations and these Islamic courts
run counter to Texas values and are repugnant to the American
Constitution and our system of laws.
The Islamification of American society is not just
happening in Texas; America has also seen a concerning
resurgence in violent Islamic terrorism. Since the last hearing
on this topic in February, there have been four Islamic
terrorist attacks in a three-month span, including a
naturalized citizen originally from Sierra Leone with a prior
conviction for attempting to aid ISIS opening fire at Old
Dominion University's campus, while yelling ``Allahu Akbar,''
killing someone during the attack.
The same day as the ODU attack, a Lebanese-born naturalized
American citizen rammed his vehicle into the Temple Israel
Synagogue and preschool in West Bloomfield, Michigan, in an
allegedly targeted attack against the Jewish community, causing
a fire and injuring onsite security personnel.
Two suspects with stated allegiance to ISIS attempted to
detonate two improvised explosive devices near the New York
City mayor's residence on Manhattan. Both suspects' parents
immigrated to the U.S. from the terror-prone countries of
Tuerkiye and Afghanistan.
In my home in Austin, a naturalized citizen originally from
Mauritania, motivated by extremist ideologies opened fire on a
crowd in Austin, Texas, killing three people and injuring
several others before being stopped by law enforcement, all
while wearing a hoodie with the caption ``Property of Allah.''
None of these tragedies needed to happen. Between our
overly generous and lax legal immigration policies that allowed
these attackers to enter the country in the first place and our
lack of adequate response to stopping Islamist ideology in its
tracks, our Nation remains vulnerable to sharia law and
potential terrorist attacks it could wreak. For too long,
politicians, scared of being called Islamophobic, have failed
to stop the spread of sharia law and refused to put an end to
the ceaseless immigration from the world of people who adhere
to it.
How many more Americans must die or succumb to sharia law
before we address this critical threat to our safety and our
way of life? I've outlined much of what has happened related to
sharia in the three-months since we had the last hearing on
this issue. We cannot wait any longer to take meaningful and
decisive action.
I believe American citizens are worth protecting.
American's Judeo-Christian principles, on which this country
were founded, is worth defending, and America's founding
principles generally are worth preserving. We must act now to
stop sharia law and the threat it that poses to our Nation and
our Constitution.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon, for her
opening statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
This is the second time this year that this Subcommittee
has been convened to hold a hearing about sharia law, which
unsurprisingly, doesn't even rank on the list of top 10 issues
keeping Americans up at night. Actually, it doesn't appear to
be an issue anywhere in this country except in Texas, where
Republican politicians are so desperate to distract voters from
their disastrous economy and surging gas prices because, as one
Republican strategist said, ``these candidates don't want to be
talking about the economy right now.'' They've made up a
conspiracy theory about their Muslim neighbors to scare and
motivate voters.
Repeating lies over and over and over again doesn't make
them true, and it doesn't make unConstitutional bigotry legal.
The last time this Subcommittee convened on this topic, I
wondered if our colleagues actually believed their own
hysterical and wildly unsubstantiated claims about people of
the Muslim faith trying to impose so-called sharia law on the
United States. As before, they're not producing one ounce of
proof to vindicate their fear mongering. Tellingly, they've
also not produced a single Muslim witness or expert on Islam or
sharia law.
Now, the only thing that's changed between the last hearing
and now is that Texas' fiercely contested Republican primaries
have moved into runoff elections, now just under two weeks
away. In Texas, this issue continues to be a flash point for
Republican Federal, State, and local candidates as they
desperately compete with one another over who can be toughest
against their sharia law fantasy.
It's a threat based not on reality but invented with
manufactured alarm because, like belief systems that guide
adherence of other faiths, including Christianity or Judaism,
sharia is about individual, personal religious observance, not
about shaping America's national laws. Contrary to the
misleading claims that have been offered here, there's no
evidence of any plot to impose sharia law on nonbelievers of
Islam. It's just not happening.
No matter how many Right-wing influencers make videos about
it, no matter how many Texas laws are passed to combat it, or
what legislation is introduced here in D.C. with flashy
acronyms decrying it, there's no evidence that a proposed real
estate development in the Dallas suburbs, which was initiated
by members of the area's growing Muslim population, is a sharia
compound, as Texas Republicans have claimed. To say otherwise
is to spread blatant misinformation. In fact, even the Trump
Justice Department closed an investigation into the
development, finding no basis for any violation of fair housing
laws.
Politicians standing up against made-up threats of sharia
law incursions are shamefully scapegoating Muslim Americans for
political gain without any care for how many people end up as
collateral damage to this kind of rhetoric. Because these
culture wars, including desperate political stunts like
scapegoating followers of Islam, have real-world consequences.
Words matter, and stirring up hatred and bigotry, when that
happens, real people are put at risk. Hate crimes against
Muslims in particular have increased in cynically playing on
division. To win an election, Republicans sacrifice the safety
of the very Americans they're supposed to be trying to
represent.
The fact is, in this country, you can't ban a person's
right to practice Islam anymore than you could ban a person's
practice of Christianity, Judaism, or the decision to practice
no religion at all. Our Constitution, and particularly the
First Amendment, which was central to its adoption in 1787,
remains clear: In this country, people have the right to hold
and express whatever religious beliefs they choose, or none at
all.
Despite the arguments we're hearing from our Republican
colleagues, we know that from our Republic's earliest days
Muslims were intended to be included within the fabric of
American life. Thomas Jefferson specifically referenced
followers of Islam among other faiths in his writings about the
passage of the Virginia statute for religious freedom in 1786,
which was one of his proudest achievements and the First
Amendment's precursor.
This is a core component of our Constitution that's
particularly valued in my home State of Pennsylvania--which was
founded by William Penn--to promote religious freedom and where
the Constitution was written. For hundreds of years,
Pennsylvania has been home to people of many faiths and
denominations, including Protestants, Catholics, Jews,
Evangelicals, Quakers, Muslims, Sikhs, and people of no faith
at all.
In my district, we have a growing cultural center, Africa
Town, founded by immigrants turned citizens, many of whom are
Muslim, and who have made huge contributions to our economic,
cultural, charitable, and civic life. One of our most cherished
American values is that you don't have to agree with your
neighbor's beliefs, but no one can use the power of the
government to punish or discriminate against those who do.
Since this is the Constitution Subcommittee, any of my
colleagues who find that principle suspicious or foreign should
probably take another look at the First Amendment and the oath
they took to support and defend the Constitution.
Unfortunately, over and over again, we've seen this White House
and its Republican allies in Congress try to use the power of
the Federal Government to spy on and target Americans whose
opinions and beliefs they don't like, whether those are
religious, political, or otherwise.
Americans know--we know at our core--that, if the
government can go after one group, it can go after all of us,
and that's why people have shown up, stood up, and spoken out
about this kind of activity. Instead of trying to score
political points at the expense of innocent people, I wish our
Republican colleagues would focus on making Americans' lives
better instead of going along with this administration when it
starts tariff wars, which have driven up the price of housing,
cars, and consumer goods; or slashing programs that Americans
rely on for better healthcare, housing, energy, and nutrition;
and starting foreign wars that have put Americans in danger,
driven up the cost of gas; or making a tax on basic liberties,
like free speech, free press, the right to peaceful protest,
or, in this hearing, freedom of religion.
We should be uniting behind these fundamental principles
that make this country actually great, not fueling division by
going after our fellow Americans with trumped-up charges, going
after our family, our friends, our neighbors, and casting them
as the enemy.
I'm hopeful that we won't have a third round of this
pointless hearing, but, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee,
Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Ranking Member talked about this is conspiracy theory
and fear mongering. It's anything but. This is looking at a
real concern, and I appreciate the Chair doing that.
If we want to talk about conspiracy theory and fear
mongering, look no further than the Southern Poverty Law
Center. The Full Committee will have a hearing on that issue
next week. They were running a scam. They were paying people--
one person, one source they paid over $1 million to promote and
create the hate that they told their donors they were actually
fighting. What an operation they were running.
You talk about fear mongering and conspiracy theory; there
you have it. We'll be looking at this issue next week. The
Biden Justice Department used the Southern Poverty Law Center
to train prosecutors setting them up as the standard for
evaluating what's a hate group, what's not. If you want to talk
about conspiracy theory and fear mongering, we'll get to that.
That's all happening on the Left, and the prime example is the
organization that is now being investigated by the Department
of Justice.
I appreciate the Chair and the work he's doing on this
important issue, particularly in his State of Texas, and look
forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank them for being
here today.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank Chair Jordan. I now recognize the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you, and thanks to our
witnesses.
Forgive me, but didn't we have the exact same hearing not
that long ago? I think it's the fourth or fifth in the line. I
can't believe that the cupboard of Republican ideas is so
barren now that, to distract America from Donald Trump's
illegal, unConstitutional, ruinous war, and his ruinous,
illegal, unConstitutional tariffs, and the spiraling price of
gasoline and the unlivable economy he's created, that we have
to go back and have this exact same hearing over and over
again. Couldn't we come up with something else instead?
It's not exactly working to reverse Donald Trump's
precipitous slide into being the most unpopular history--most
unpopular President in American history, because that's where
we are. If we're going to have another religious convocation,
perhaps next time it could be a debate between Donald Trump
dressed up perhaps like Jesus Christ and the Pope of the
Catholic Church so the Pope can answer Trump's recent
accusation that he's weak on crime.
I never got that charge. After all, Trump himself is a
convicted felon who has pardoned more than 1,600 rioters,
insurrectionists, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, domestic abusers,
child molesters, white-collar fraudsters, and international
narcotraffickers and drug dealers, and the Pope is certainly
not weak on him. The Pope has made his views on Donald Trump
perfectly clear. I don't understand how the Trump--why Trump is
saying that the Pope is weak on crime.
Anyway, I had this idea I wanted to float by my colleagues
to perhaps create some legislative progress in this field. The
Republicans are afraid the Muslims are going to impose sharia
law on the rest of the population. Now, I'm not so afraid of
that because we have 535 Members of Congress, and only four of
them are Muslim, which makes it extremely unlikely. How could
less than one percent of Congress impose sharia law on the
other 99 percent?
What's even more reassuring is I actually know some of
these Muslim Americans who happen to be in Congress, and
they're all civil libertarians who stand up for the separation
of church and State. Even if they changed their minds and
convinced all the Christian, Jews, Hindus, and freethinkers in
Congress--who are 99 percent in the House--to vote for sharia
law, I'm sure someone on the Senate side, where there are no
Muslims at all, would put a hold on it like everything else
that we send over there. I'm a pretty good vote counter, and I
don't think that there would be a single vote to establish
sharia law in the U.S. Congress or in any State of the Union.
Anyway, I had this idea to take advantage of the fact that
we all agree on this point. Why don't we generalize the
proposition of this anti-sharia law movement to say that the
government should not be endorsing or establishing any religion
in America, whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Jews for
Jesus, Seventh-day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism,
fundamental Mormonism, Unitarian Universalism, Branch
Davidianism, or Hare Krishna.
I was playing with some language, and I came up with this
rough cut, Mr. Chair. It goes like this: ``Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.'' What do you think about that? Do
you think that covers it? We could call the first part the
Establishment Clause; we could call the second part the Free
Exercise Clause. I know we could get that through the
Democratic Caucus. You think we could get it through the
Republican Conference? I'm not sure. I hope so. The problem is
that we've got theocrats out there across the religious
spectrum who want to elevate their own religious creeds and
dogmas above the Constitution and establish them over the
secular law.
Take, for example, what the Texas and Louisiana
legislatures recently did. They voted to endorse the Ten
Commandments and post the Ten Commandments in every public-
school classroom in their States. I didn't even know that was
necessary because I thought the Ten Commandments were doing all
right after millennia. I didn't know they needed an endorsement
from the Republican Conference. They went ahead and did that.
Now, they want to have votes in every State legislature to
endorse the Ten Commandments and to post the Ten Commandments.
I'm opposed to that because of the provision in the
Constitution, Article VI, clause 3, which says, ``There shall
be no religious tests for public office.'' That sounds like a
religious test when you round up all the politicians and you
ask them to vote on the Ten Commandments.
By the way, if we are going to vote on the Ten
Commandments, Mr. Chair, I do not support that omnibus
Republican package. We should have to vote on each commandment
separately. I don't think that you should be able to vote for
any commandment you yourself have ever violated because then
we'll be taking the name of the Lord in vain.
One politician I spoke to on the floor about this, he said
that ``you know that the Ten Commandments are the basis for the
Bill of Rights.'' He kind of confused me there for a second. I
said, ``Well, I do know that there are 10 in each one. That's
true.'' Let's test the proposition. The First Commandment says,
``Thou shall have no other God before me.'' The First Amendment
says, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of a religion.'' It's hard to see how the First Commandment
dictates the First Amendment.
Is sharia law incompatible with the Constitution as the
title of the hearing is? Sure. Is legislating any other
religious text, the Ten Commandments, the Torah, or the
Analects of Confucius or whatever, any religious scripture or
body. The whole point of our First Amendment is that people can
believe whatever they want. The government is not going to
dictate to you what your religious worship and practice are
going to be. The government is out of it.
I did not write that language, to be clear. James Madison
wrote that language. He took care of your whole anti-sharia-law
law centuries ago. This is a complete waste of time. He had the
right idea. Madison would be appalled that the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals just voted nine to eight to uphold the
compulsory Ten Commandments display in every school classroom
in Texas or Louisiana.
If Louisiana can do that, it can compel display of the Five
Pillars of Islam. Think about that. You really want to head
down that road? The States could force display of the Ten
Precepts of Buddhism, the Analects of Confucius, or the five
principles of Hinduism, if you can put up the Ten Commandments.
By the way, the Ten Commandments doesn't exist as one commonly
agreed-on body of law. If you go online, you'll find like 10 or
15 different versions of the Ten Commandments: There's a
Catholic version. There's a Lutheran version. There's a Jewish
version, a Baptist version, Mennonite, and so on. If you can
compel display of 10 of them, you can compel display of all of
them. There could be 100 commandments. There could be 150
commandments.
Look, my friends, we don't need an anti-sharia-law law, an
anti-Christian-law law, an anti-Jewish-law law, or an anti-
Hindu-law law. We've already got one, forbidding the imposition
of any religious orthodoxy, forbidding the endorsement of any
religious orthodoxy. It's called the First Amendment, and
everybody should familiarize themselves with it, because this
is a complete waste of time what we're doing here.
The government cannot establish, prefer, legislate, coerce,
impose, or endorse any religious doctrine, and we don't need a
special law or a special caucus to do that. If my friends
understand that, then they will reverse course on this
movement, unless the purpose of the movement is just to
demonize and vilify not a religion but adherence of the
religion. Then, I would have to believe that my colleagues are
actually out just attacking Muslims, attacking Muslim
Americans, criticizing and vilifying them for their beliefs or
their way of life. I don't want to believe that.
I do challenge my friends to State one thing that an anti-
sharia-law law would do that the First Amendment doesn't
already do. Tell me one thing that we would need to legislate
that's not already taken care of by the Establishment Clause or
the Free Exercise Clause.
The real threat to our Constitution comes not from
adherence of a particular religion but from turning our backs
on the Constitution and the First Amendment. Our freedoms are
not under siege by a religious minority trying to build a
community center, but they are undermined by lawmakers who
would want to turn Americans against each other on a religious
basis.
Is it true that religious fanatics commit violent criminal
acts? Absolutely. You talk to any secular freethinker, and they
will say that every religion has produced religious fanatics
who have committed violence. Take, for example, Timothy
McVeigh, who was part of the Christian Identity Church, the
Christian Identity movement, trained on racism and anti-
Semitism; he blew up the Oklahoma Federal building in 1995, 167
people killed; 684 wounded. They blew up a nursery school. He
was a violent fundamentalist Christian fanatic. You wouldn't
blame all Christians for what he did anymore than you should
blame all Muslims, all Jews, or all members of any religious
faith because of what one person or one crazed fanatic group
does in their name.
Mr. Chair, I trust you understand all of that. I do hope we
will return to Constitutional principles, and I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. Without objection, all
other opening statements will be included in record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses:
Mr. Ammon Blair. Mr. Blair is a Senior Fellow at the Texas
Public Policy Foundation. His research focuses on transnational
criminal organizations, foreign terrorist networks, hostile
State influence operations, mass migration, and emerging
security threats. He previously served more than two decades
with the United States Army and is a Border Patrol agent.
Mr. Marco Hunter-Lopez. Mr. Hunter-Lopez is a student at
Wiley East High School in Wylie, Texas, where he's the
president of the school's Republican Student Club. He also
serves on the PTA board and has been involved in national,
State, and local campaigns since he was 13. I believe that Mr.
Hunter-Lopez recently turned 16; that's correct.
Ms. Amy Mekelburg. Ms. Mekelburg is the Founder and Editor
in Chief of the RAIR Foundation, a grassroots organization that
advocates for American values. Her work is focused on
authoritarian systems and efforts to replace Democratic
governance.
Ms. Amanda Tyler. Ms. Tyler is the Executive Director of
the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit
organization that advocates on matters of religion. She
previously worked in Congress and private law practice.
We thank our witnesses for appearing today, and we'll begin
by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right
hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
You may be seated. Please know that your written testimony
will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly,
we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. I'm
going to start over here on the right. Remind our witnesses to
turn the microphone on.
Mr. Blair, you may begin your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMMON S. BLAIR
Mr. Blair. Dear Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the
distinguished Members of the Committee, good morning and that
you for inviting me to testify before you.
My name is Ammon Blair. I'm a Senior Fellow with the Texas
Public Policy Foundation Secure and Sovereign Nation Initiative
and a consultant for the Operation Lone Star Task Force. As
Representative Roy stated, I previously served as a United
States Border Patrol agent in the Rio Grande Valley Sector and
had more than two decades in the United States Army.
The issue before this Subcommittee is not whether Americans
have the right to practice religion freely. They do
unequivocally. The First Amendment protects belief, worship,
religious instruction, peaceful association, and voluntary
observance. Texas law does the same. However, religious liberty
does not create immunity from the rule of law. A crime remains
a crime regardless of religion, and no religious ideological or
political system possesses a Constitutional license to violate
the rights of a sovereign Nation, a sovereign State, a
political subdivision, private property owners, or individual
citizens.
The Constitutional issue before Congress is narrow but
foundational. The American Constitutional order recognizes dual
sovereignty between the Federal Government and the States. It
does not recognize parallel sovereign systems operating outside
Constitutional supremacy, judicial review, equal protection,
due process, or the rule of law. The Supremacy Clause, Equal
Protection, and Due Process Clauses in Article IV guarantee one
supreme Constitutional order in one Republican form of
government.
No religious ideological, political, or organizational
system may exercise coercive civil authority independent of the
Constitution while claiming immunity from Constitutional
accountability. This distinction between protected belief and
regulable conduct is deeply rooted in American Constitutional
law.
Under the Tenth Amendment and longstanding police-powers
doctrine, States retain inherent sovereign authority and the
ongoing duty to preserve public safety, territorial integrity,
property rights, institutional order, and domestic tranquility.
States were never meant to function as passive subdivisions
awaiting Federal permission before defending Constitutional
order. Texas stands at the center of this national security
crisis.
Federal strategic assessments, including the 2026 U.S.
Counterterrorism Strategy and the ODNI's 2026 Annual Threat
Assessment, identify cartels and Islamic terrorism as top
homeland threats. These threats overlap and reinforce one
another through the hybrid and gray zone operations. Texas is
confronting weaponized mass migration, cartel-engineered
smuggling networks, foreign-linked governance structures
operating within our communities, and systemic failure across
the entire immigration enforcement and removal cycle.
These dynamics have produced concentrated enclaves with
limited assimilation and fragmented allegiances, environments
actively exploited by foreign terrorist organizations, hostile
States, and transnational criminal networks. Migration
pipelines now function as operational infrastructure for
coercion, illicit finance, transnational repression, and
foreign influence.
While all eyes are on the conflict with Iran overseas, that
conflict is not confined to distant battlefields. It is playing
out right here on our shores. Iran has waged decades-long
hybrid operations in Western Hemisphere and U.S. interior,
leveraging proxies including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Muslim
Brotherhood-linked networks alongside cartel-smuggling
infrastructure. These threat networks increasingly utilize gray
zone tactics operating under the threshold of armed conflict
inside the United States through cyber-enabled influence
operations, propaganda ecosystems, and online radical-ization
platforms to accelerate recruitment, coordination, and
institutional influence.
These networks exploit migration corridors and distribute
institutional ecosystems inside the United States. They operate
through nonprofits, charities, educational institutions,
advocacy groups, media ecosystems, and political conditions to
pursue influence, concealment, and institutional entrenchment.
These networks pursue the very civilization jihadist process of
settlement outlined in the Muslim brotherhood's 1991
Explanatory Memorandum. That document calls for gradual
institutional entrenchment to eliminate--I say, quote,
``eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within,''
by building parallel power structures inside American society.
Mass migration at scale can create operational and
demographic conditions that facilitate long-term institutional
entrenchment when vetting, assimilation, and Constitutional
integration mechanisms erode.
The Constitutional concern is not private worship or
voluntary religious practice. It arises where systems attempt
to establish coercive adjudicatory structures, assert sharia as
superior civil law, obstruct access to American courts, and
subordinate Constitutional protectives to alternative
government--governing authority.
Texas is confronting this reality directly, exercising its
sovereign authorities, including the governance power as
Commander in Chief. Governor Abbott has designated both the
Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist organizations
and transnational criminal organizations. Governor Abbott has
directed investigations into entities masquerading as legal
courts staffed with judges issuing orders that purportedly
carry authority to bind individuals to Islamic codes.
The Constitution protects the broadest sphere of religious
liberty precisely because every person and institution within
the United States ultimately remains accountable to one
Constitutional system, one civil sovereign, and one rule of
law. No parallel system claiming supremacy over the
Constitution can be permitted.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blair follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Blair. I'm now going to go to Ms.
Mekelburg for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF AMY MEKELBURG
Ms. Mekelburg. Distinguished Members of Congress, my name
is Amy Mekelburg. I'm Founder of RAIR Foundation USA. I come
before you today out of profound love for this country and at
great personal cost. For 15 years, I have documented Islam's
assault on Europe and its dangerous advance inside of America.
For defending Western values, Islam and its Left-wing
allies marked my family for destruction. They stalked us. They
attacked my loved ones' careers and sent death threats. Today,
I travel with armed security. A simple walk, a grocery run,
opening my front door, none of it is safe anymore. Islam has
taken that from me.
The hardest part of this fight though has been watching my
friends pay the ultimate price. On January 29, 2025, my friend
Salwan Momika, an Iraqi Christian who fled to Sweden to escape
Islam, was slaughtered as I watched. Sweden put him on trial
for hate speech, for telling the truth about the threat that
killed him. Salwan predicted his own assassination. He knew
because the sharia penalty for criticizing Islam is death.
A 1,400-year-old war is being waged inside our country.
Muhammad, the man that Muslims call their prophet, was a
military commander whose mission was to bring the world under
Islamic rule. The mission cannot be completed until America
falls. Islam is a hostile totalitarian political ideology using
our freedoms to destroy us. To every non-Muslim, it offers
three choices: Convert, submit, or die.
It does not stop until every court, every school, and every
government on Earth is under sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood
turned this imperative into a modern conquest strategy. Two
seized documents, the 1982 Project and the 1981 Explanatory
Memorandum, detail their two-front plan: Build parallel Islamic
societies that reject assimilation while their faithful capture
our institutions. The Brotherhood wrote the playbook.
Today, every hostile Islamic regime and faction is
executing it on our soil: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkiye, Qatar,
Pakistan, Hamas, and the Taliban. Different countries,
different sects, all marching in lockstep toward one conquest.
These networks operate more than 8,000 Islamic nonprofits
across America, including 650 in Texas alone. They built a
parallel infrastructure: Mosques, seminaries, school, sharia
banks, sharia courts, sharia clinics, charities, media, and
political networks. They have no plans of assimilating.
Texas and Florida are the Brotherhood's command centers.
They're the clearest example of the first strategy: Build
massive fortresses where Muslims can live cradle to grave under
full sharia.
In Texas, terror-tied imam Yasir Qadhi, is fighting to
build EPIC City, a 402-acre sharia compound marked as, quote,
``the epicenter of Islam in North America.''
In Katy, an $80 million sharia compound is rising under
Brotherhood operative Main Al Qudah, whose family are leading
terrorists in Jordan.
Hamed Ghazali, named in the 1991 memorandum, recruited
Americans for Al Qaeda. Today he writes curriculum for Islamic
schoolchildren across North America. Texas taxpayers are able
to fund him through school vouchers.
Across America, the Brotherhood is buying churches and
converting them to mosques. A Lubbock school became a
Brotherhood mosque in 45 days. In Dallas, two imams, who preach
hand amputation, sex with captives, and stoning adulterers are
suing to seize a Christian megachurch.
In Garland, Texas, hosts the U.S. headquarters of a
Pakistani jihadi network that trains hundreds of terrorists,
including the recent killer of the West Virginia National Guard
member.
In Florida, third-generation Brotherhood leader Magda
Elkadi Saleh runs a self-contained Tampa enclave. A Houston
mosque led by imam appointed by the Iran supreme leader
received $1 million in tax dollars while children pledge
allegiance. Another Hamas-supporting Texas mega mosque hosted
public school field trips while its imams preached that the
fathers and brothers can kill adulterous daughters.
Members of Congress, there is a little Muslim-American girl
right now born in Texas under our Constitution with every
sacred right our forefathers fought and died to give her. She
will never know any of them. Her own father, imam, and teachers
raise her to believe she is worth less than half a man and
Islam texts command this. If she is beaten, it is her fault; if
she is raped, no American courthouse will hear her screams; if
she is married off as a child to a pedophile, she will never
know it is a crime. She is shielded from her birthright, raised
to hate her own country, trained to subvert it. There are
thousands like her and they are growing fast.
This war's second strategy captures our institutions and
cultures from within. Their operatives have penetrated our
State Department, our courts, and our school boards to subvert
the Constitution and replace it. Hamas, doing business as CAIR,
has trained 50,000 lawyers--they boast of this--journalists,
film makers, and influencers, to embed Islam and rewrite our
history. When we object, they scream ``Islamophobia.'' Their
super PAC floods our elections; mosques run voter drives.
Beside me is 15-year-old Marco Hunter-Lopez. He will tell
you how the Muslim Brotherhood's student arm founded in Texas
by Yasir Qadhi's father is targeting Texas children. For
speaking out, Marco's safety was threatened. Our Nation's
leaders are failing our children. Members of Congress, the
American people are awake; Washington is not. We must choose
the Constitution of the Koran, America or the caliphate,
freedom or submission. There is no middle ground.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mekelburg follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Mekelburg. Ms.
Tyler, I'll give you some extra time, OK, to make sure it's
fair.
Ms. Tyler. Yes.
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize Mr. Hunter-Lopez for his five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARCO HUNTER-LOPEZ
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and
the distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. My name is Marco Hunter-
Lopez. I am a 16-year-old sophomore at Wiley East High School
in Wylie, Texas. I've been invited to speak regarding an
incident that occurred on February 2nd, on my campus in a
widespread effort across Texas and the Nation.
Last year as a freshman, I founded the Republican Student
Club because I wanted to foster a space for students who share
the same values. What should've been a simple act of student
leadership became a prolonged battle against school
administrators who treated my group differently from every
other club on campus.
On August 16, 2024, we met every requirement: Ten members,
a teacher sponsor, and a room. Other groups, including the
Muslim Student Association and organizations supporting gender-
affirming ideology, were approved without issue. Our club was
denied for being political in nature. Administrators first
claimed a district-wide policy against political clubs. Then,
after weeks of emails requesting the policy in writing, they
admitted it was simply how they felt.
Only after more than a month of emails, pushback, and
enormous effort were we approved. Even then, we faced hostile
scrutiny. Principals were caught taking down our approved
posters while I was out of town. I have a documented timeline
of specific instances of an unfair treatment; being pulled into
the principal's office, cornered, and talked down to.
After we hosted two guest speakers last year, the principal
tried to impose new rules on the fly. My father even had to
create--help create a guest speaker form to protect me as a
minor. This pattern of censorship against our club stands in
stark contrast to how administrators have handled the promotion
of Islamic ideology and including sharia.
On February 2nd, I was leaving a meeting and was walking to
the cafeteria for lunch, and I saw a large booth labeled
``Islam'' set up in the school. Four adult women from the
organization WhyIslam were there. I was confused and did not
want to give it attention, but after discussing it with my
friends, we decided to approach the booth. I had a discussion
with the women, one in particular who they kept referring me to
because she knew most of the theological questions. As we tried
to understand their goal, I looked over and saw multiple
pamphlets spread out, one of which was explicitly titled,
``Understanding Sharia.'' This was very concerning to me and
other students.
They were also making Korans available that include a
Shahada card on the last page instructing students how to
convert. ``To become a Muslim, one needs to make the following
declaration: I bear witness that there is no God worthy of
worship except God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the
messenger of God.'' This openly occurred during lunch with
administrators present who did nothing to intervene. The
dangers of allowing sharia to be promoted in public schools are
real and immediate.
Sharia is not simply a personal religious observance. It is
a comprehensive legal and political system that includes
unequal treatment, restrictions on free speech, harsh
punishments, and fundamental incompatibility with the U.S.
Constitution, Texas law, and American values of individual
liberty and equality. Handing out materials that present sharia
favorably to minors during the school day--without parental
approval--risks normalizing ideas that undermine the very
principles our public schools are supposed to uphold.
This is not neutral education; it is ideological promotion
under the guise of diversity and inclusion. The contrast with
my own club cannot be clearer: While the Republican Student
Club faced denial, censorship, poster removal, and hostile
oversight, an outside organization was given easy access to
distribute sharia-related materials directly to students.
Administrators not only allowed it; they actively promote
Islamic events. The principal has enthusiastically participated
in World Hijab Day two years in a row that we are aware of,
when she wore a hijab and promoted it on social media saying,
quote, ``I LOVED THIS EXPERIENCE.''
The district now offers halal meals, a dedicated prayer
room for Islamic observances, and has placed a Koran in at
least one middle school library while no bible was offered.
Conservative and Christian student groups have never received
comparable accommodations or leeway. This is not mere
negligence; it is complicity through selective enforcement and
viewpoint discrimination. School policies and State laws
regarding outside organizations, religious materials, and guest
activities were bypassed and ignored. No one stopped the
distribution of the materials and sharia pamphlets in my high
school cafeteria.
After not attending the school the next day due to safety
concerns, we had to meet with the school resource officer and
two administrators. When my mother asked if the principal could
notify teachers to keep an extra eye on me after I received
these threats, the principal's dismissive ``You can'' revealed
the lack of accountability in leadership.
The administration has turned a blind eye or actively
enabled the introduction of sharia-lined influence while
censoring other viewpoints. The WhyIslam organization and event
has documented links to the Council on American Islamic
Relations, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Muslim
Brotherhood, some of which has been flagged by the Governor of
Texas as terror linked; yet district leadership has refused to
address these connections.
Public schools must remain neutral. They exist to educate,
not promote, foreign legal systems incompatible with our own
Constitution or favor another ideology over another. What is
happening in suburban Wylie is not isolated. If sharia can be
introduced this easily in a small suburban town of Wylie, it
can happen anywhere.
I urge this Committee and lawmakers across the country to
demand full investigation into these organizations and reject
any ideology or political system that is at odds with American
law. Parents and students deserve transparency and protection
from ideological capture. What began as my effort to start a
simple conservative club has revealed how quickly institutions
can be compromised and captured when we remain silent.
Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer questions and
provide further explanations from my firsthand experience.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter-Lopez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Mr. Hunter-Lopez, thank you very much for your
testimony. Thank you for your courage in coming up and
testifying. I believe you're the first minor in this Congress
to testify in the Judiciary Committee, and we appreciate you
coming forward.
Ms. Tyler, you'll have a very liberal five minutes for your
time to keep things balanced. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF AMANDA TYLER
Ms. Tyler. Good morning, Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon,
the Members of the Subcommittee. I am Amanda Tyler, Executive
Director of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. As a
Constitutional attorney and Baptist Christian, I'm honored to
be here to offer testimony about how targeting individuals and
groups based on religion violates our country's Constitutional
commitment to religious freedom for all.
In this 250th year of American independence, our country
has the opportunity to reaffirm the foundational values that
unite our diverse people. Core to what it means to be an
American is a rich, religious freedom tradition that protects
the free exercise of religion of all people by ensuring that
government not single out any one religion for special favor or
disapproval.
Our Founders made a deliberate choice to disestablish
religion from government control. They did so with the
experience of government establishments of religion in the
places they emigrated from and in the British colonies.
Baptists were instrumental in advocacy for religious
freedom for all people in the United States. This advocacy
predates American independence by more than 150 years. Thomas
Helwys, the cofounder of the Baptist movement, wrote ``A Short
Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity'' in 1612. This work is
considered the first defense of universal religious freedom
written in English.
In it, Helwys wrote to King James I about the importance of
freedom of conscience of all people, including Muslims:
For men's religion to God is betwixt God and themselves. The
king shall not answer for it. Neither may the king be judged
between God and person. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or
whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish
them in the least measure.
As this history informs us, religious liberty is a
fundamental commitment, and it should protect all religions. As
recently as last year, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that
the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that the
government may not officially prefer one religious denomination
over another, nor pass laws that aid or oppose particular
religious. Anti-Muslim government action violates that clear
command. Even proposed legislation targeting a particular
religion can undercut our fundamental religious freedom by
perpetuating harmful stereotypes and misinformation about Islam
and Muslims.
We have seen government initiatives that manufacture an
imaginary threat of sharia as a way of sowing anti-Muslim fear
in the past. Unfortunately, today we are seeing a resurgence
nationally, and particularly in my home State of Texas, of such
efforts. Efforts like these misunderstood Islam and sharia,
which means the path to water, and refers to the religious
principles that guide Muslims in their beliefs and actions.
This broad denigration of sharia directly impacts
approximately one percent of the U.S. population. Particularly
at a time of rising political violence, targeting groups based
on perceived differences threatens to exacerbate tensions and
contributes to a culture of fear, discrimination, and violence.
The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding published
its annual national Islamophobia index at the end of 2025. It
found a sharp increase in the degree of endorsement of anti-
Muslim stereotypes compared to previous years. It also found
that Muslims are the religious group most likely to report
experiencing religious discrimination and the only religious
subgroup in which a majority reported such discrimination. This
includes social discrimination among peers, as well as
structural discrimination, such as employment, immigration
proceedings, and healthcare.
Almost half of Muslim families with children in K-12
schools reported their child was bullied for their religious
identity, twice as much as the general public. Roughly half
said the bullying came from another student and half said from
an adult, either a teacher or classmate's parent. When the
government itself targets religious groups with broad
generalizations and baseless accusations, it only adds to the
culture of discrimination that already harms Muslim families
and children. It models bullying rather than respect.
What's more, this targeting does not just harm Muslims.
When any person's religious freedom is threatened or diminished
it weakens everyone's religious freedom. Rather than fear
mongering and distorting religion for perceived political gain,
our country's leaders should be actively working to make the
Constitutional promise of full belonging without regard to
religion a reality for all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tyler follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Well, thank you, Ms. Tyler. You just nailed it
right on five minutes. You didn't even get to take the extra
time that I was trying to offer you. I appreciate it.
I will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for
five minutes of questions.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for calling
this important hearing to discuss the threat of political
Islam. We're blessed to live in a country that has the
fundamental liberty of religious freedom, and religious freedom
allows individuals to hold and express their beliefs without
undue government interference. It does ensure that people can
choose their faith or no faith and practice it openly, and it's
important to protect our individual liberties from extremism
that seeks to erode our values as a country.
One example of the extremism we want to protect our country
from occurred in just 2025 when parents in Washington State
allegedly attempted an honor killing of their teenage daughter
for refusing an arranged marriage. This appalling level of
extremism is incompatible with our way of life and must not be
allowed to take root in our country.
Ms. Mekelburg, in your experience investigating instances
of political Islam in the United States, how prevalent would
you say it's become across the country?
Ms. Mekelburg. In my testimony I talked about there being
8,000 organizations across the United States. They're working
in lockstep. It is extremely prevalent and growing massively.
Mr. Harris. In your view, does political Islam pose a
threat to the fundamental values of American democracy?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes, it does, they openly say it.
Mr. Harris. Well, Mr. Blair, I want to come to you for just
a moment. During the four years of open border policies under
the Biden Administration, people from all around the world came
into our country frankly without any vetting. We've seen that.
The failure to secure our border provided those who seek to
commit violent acts against the United States with a perfect
opportunity to enter our Nation undetected. Mr. Blair, how did
the Biden Administration's open border policies impact the
spread of political Islam in the United States?
Mr. Blair. We were mandated--so we were mandated to look
the other way under prosecutorial discretion. We released known
terrorists where we didn't know it until after the fact, but we
had multiple people from all across the world coming into the
United States with falsified documents, specifically from Iran
who had come in with Venezuelan documents, under the guise that
we would not be able to identify them, which was the case.
That's why, later on, Representative Gonzalez was able to,
through a FOIA, find out how many on the nondisclosed docket of
the criminal illegal aliens that we released there were. I
think there were a little over 600,000 of them that Border
Patrol and ICE released during that time period.
Mr. Harris. Would you say there's security threats that
grew during that period that we're still dealing with even
today?
Mr. Blair. One hundred percent sir. A lot of the
information that was given to us as Border Patrol agents when
we were on the ground was misinformation, and we didn't have
that time even to this day to be able to vet the information,
whether that's going to be the sponsor, whether that's going to
be the country of origin, even their age, even their--or their
family status. We couldn't really vet any of that. Now, when
ICE is trying to conduct operations or target operations, they
have that bad information where they're going out city-to-city
trying to find those that seek harm to our communities.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir.
I want to come back to Ms. Mekelburg for just a moment.
During this Subcommittee's last hearing on this topic, I
discussed how the FBI had successfully thwarted an ISIS-
inspired terrorist attack in North Carolina. In that story--you
may recall it was a national story. Christian Sturtevant, 18-
year-old, sought to become a martyr for ISIS, planning to carry
out a deadly attack on New Year's Eve in Mint Hill, North
Carolina, which is right in my district.
Following that incident in North Carolina, I want to ask
you, do you believe there's been an increase in ISIS using
social media chat rooms and other features to radicalize
Americans?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes, it's something that we actually saw. I
spent 10 years really hyper focused working in Europe, and it
was probably one of the biggest threats, the way that ISIS and
many different other Islamic jihadist groups are using social
media, are disseminating very terrifying videos and imams and
their organizations, they're pushing nonstop videos and nonstop
recruitment efforts, yes.
Mr. Harris. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez, let me come to you really quickly in the
last few seconds I have. Thank you, first, for coming and
testifying today. Since that incident occurred and the school
district officials took full responsibility for the situation,
have you seen a change in how the school has approached student
clubs on campus?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Yes. Actually, I have a lot of
relationships with a lot of teacher sponsors for different
groups, and they said that they're trying to say that they're
putting these new policies on paper. In terms of the way that
certain people are still being treated, there are still
conservative students, including myself, that are still being
treated unfairly according to the standard that they're holding
for other people.
Mr. Harris. Well, I applaud you for speaking out about this
and coming to testify today. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I now
recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee, the gentleman
from Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My colleague
just spoke of apparently a Muslim family where there was an
effort to kill their own daughter in a so-called honor killing,
if I understand it correctly.
Murder is against the law in America, whether the parents
are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or anything else. Mr.
Blair, would we need a special law to deal with a situation
like that, or does the universal secular law against murder
take care of that?
Mr. Blair. The current law takes care of that right now.
Mr. Raskin. Good. OK. I'm looking at an article about a
Christian group, an extremist Christian group that calls
themselves the Army of God that's taken credit for bombing
abortion clinics and lesbian night bars--do we need a special
law against Christian extremism or Christian violence, or do we
just hold them to the general secular law against blowing up
health clinics and bars?
Mr. Blair. It needs to be held to the same law and to the
same standard.
Mr. Raskin. Can you think of any situation where the
secular law alone would not handle anybody's legitimate fears
that they have of a fundamentalist Christian group, Muslim
group, or any other religious group.
Mr. Blair. Unless it's based off the ideology of either the
district attorney or the judge themselves, whether they
adjudicate or not, that's going to be the difference, whether
that process itself allows for the adjudication of that crime.
As I said in my testimony, a crime is still a crime regardless
of religion.
Mr. Raskin. Great. Stated at the level which you wrote it,
I agree with a lot of what you said. You just basically said
we've got to hold everybody to the secular law. Is there
anybody on the panel who thinks that we need a special law
addressing any particular religious population, whether it's
the Muslim, the Christian, the Jewish, the Hindu, the Mormon,
or what have you? Or are we just saying that everybody should
be held to secular law in America? I'm happy to open it up to
anybody. Mr. Hunter-Lopez?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
I think that you keep referring to a secular law. It's
important to point out--I believe it was 56 of the 57
Declaration of Independence signers were Bible-believing-faith-
church-attending Christians. I believe it was the first
original 13 colonies that required a declaration of faith. I'm
not acknowledging that--
Mr. Raskin. Oh, well, wait a second. Now, you're traversing
my territory now, Mr. Hunter-Lopez. You brought it up. Are you
aware that the Constitution of the United States does not
establish a religion; it forbids the establishment a religion?
Are you aware it doesn't mention God?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. The Declaration of Independence mentions
God four times. What I was going to say--
Mr. Raskin. Is the Declaration of Independence law?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. The Declaration of Independence was
declaring our independence from the tyranny of England.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. The Constitution is the governing law.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. I'm not suggesting that we need to go
back to taking tests or saying that you have to acknowledge--
Mr. Raskin. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was
denounced as an infidel--who wrote the Declaration of
Independence--because he didn't believe in the establishment of
religion, and he and Madison were emphatic about separating
church and State? That's the whole glory of our Constitutional
design in our history that they rebelled against centuries of
religiously warfare between the Catholics and the Protestants,
and witchcraft trials, the Inquisition, and Holy Crusades.
America proclaimed the separation of church and State.
What Thomas Jefferson described in his famous letter, the
Danbury Baptists, as a wall of separation.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. That was a letter, not a law.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Your position is that America is a
theocracy?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. What you didn't let me finish my original
statement, and I understand you have limited time. What I was
going to say is I'm not suggesting we need to go back to
anything that's in writing, but what I am saying is we need to
acknowledge the specific--
Mr. Raskin. Well, we should go back to something in
writing. I think we should go back to the First Amendment.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Oh, yes, it's the Constitution,
obviously. What I'm saying is that--how I said original
colonies were requiring declaration of faith to run for office,
I'm not saying we have to go back to that--
Mr. Raskin. That's why we have a First Amendment.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. What I'm saying is that we do--
Mr. Raskin. That's precisely why Jefferson wrote it.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. We do need to acknowledge our Christian
heritage in America. That's what I'm trying to--
Mr. Raskin. You can acknowledge whatever heritage you want,
but you can't impose an establishment of religion on other
people.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. I'm not suggesting that at all. I am just
saying we need to acknowledge our heritage. That's what I'm
saying.
Mr. Raskin. Everybody can acknowledge their own heritage.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. American heritage, not just any heritage
is what I'm saying.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, well, you don't think that you're allowed
to acknowledge your Christian heritage or your Jewish heritage
or your Muslim heritage.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. I'm saying you Members of Congress need
to acknowledge American heritage.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, indeed, you know how we do that, by
abiding by the Constitution of the United States, which is why
that's exactly where I began.
Ms. Tyler, what do you think about this whole anti-sharia
law thing? Do we need a special law banning sharia law?
Ms. Tyler. No, because we have the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution that prohibits establishment of any religion,
including Islam.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I yield back to you within five
minutes.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member, and I appreciate that
spirited exchange. I will now recognize the gentlelady from
Wyoming, my good friend, Ms. Hageman.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. In our previous hearing on this
topic, I focused on how sharia-based tribunals will jeopardize
America's rights to equal protection and due process under the
law, particularly in cases involving women and minors.
We learned that the presence of sharia-based tribunals in
the United States date back decades, and that it is common
practice for these tribunals to stray from traditional judicial
proceedings, meaning that participants risk losing protections
guaranteed under the Constitution, as was just being debated.
One example of such a tribunal operating near Dallas before
altering its website actually prided itself on being a unique
institution of its kind in the United States with the intention
of setting a precedent that would be emulated and duplicated
throughout the country. That same tribunal further claimed
that, quote,
Conflicting problems within American-Muslim society may range
from personal and family matters, such as marriage and divorce
as well as disputes among community members and those in
positions of leadership. The courts of the United States of
America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers.
To be clear, conformity to the Constitution is the
governing factor behind the operation of our judicial system.
The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments are there
to ensure that everyone has a right to a fair trial.
While the First Amendment is intended to ensure that every
American citizen can practice the religion of their choosing,
it does not permit any parallel tribunal or body to supersede
the role of our judiciary in the protections of those
Constitutional rights.
Ms. Mekelburg, sharia-based tribunals often label
themselves as offering voluntary services. Is it not true that
individuals have been coerced into using these bodies because
of social, familial, and other community pressures?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes, I was actually saying earlier that
right now, in communities all across Texas, all across
different places throughout the United States, from birth to
death, they now have full operational societies. That somebody
could actually be born in America and never have to operate
outside of and deal with any kind of non-Muslim.
Within these societies, they have their courts. If you
notice, most of the Imams that are the heads that are coming
from outside the country are sharia judges. These sharia judges
hand down these different--they use many different names. They
will say that they're an Imam; they're a sharia, expert, a
sharia jurist, et cetera. If you go and you look, these are the
people who are acting as the judges within these communities.
There's an entire organization around this. If you look up
the Assembly Muslim of Jurists in America, they're issuing
fatwas. We have Fiqh council people who are also--again, that's
a sharia judge. These are people who are putting out fatwas
that you can kill apostates, blasphemers. This is happening
inside America.
Ms. Hageman. That's clearly a violation of the Constitution
and the rights of the individuals who are involved in those
tribunals. Correct?
Ms. Mekelburg. Correct.
Ms. Hageman. All right. Another characteristic of American
courts is generally the presence of robust oversight. We have
court records. Decisions are easily accessible. Attorneys are
present, and the transcripts of proceedings are properly
recorded so that we know what happens in our court system.
Would you please explain how does this oversight compare to
the operation of a sharia-based tribunal?
Ms. Mekelburg. This is handled inside the community. You'll
never know of any of these things. That's the problem that I
always have when I say we're failing children, and we're
failing minorities and women--and things are happening in these
communities that nobody ever knows of. There is no voice for
the little girl who is being born in this community. She
doesn't even know what her rights are in this country that she
is being born into. Again, she is answering to her family. She
is answering to her Imam, and she is answering to the person
who is the expert in sharia within her community.
Ms. Hageman. At the same time, she is not able to fully
exercise the Constitutional rights that have been bestowed on
her?
Ms. Mekelburg. Absolutely not.
Ms. Hageman. In terms of--are there judgments or rulings
catalogued? Are they consistent from one imam to another one or
one sharia-based judiciary to another one?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes. That's why, when you look up the
Assembly, this one body, they are handing out the different
legal--it's the legal arm inside the community. Again, are
there different variations that different people follow? At
times, but that's why they have--and, again, if you look up the
Fiqh Council where Yasser Qadhi is the head of, or you look up
a place like AMJA, where they're pushing out these different
fatwas that all the mosques are following, it does act as the
governing body--the legal body, I'm sorry.
Ms. Hageman. Just very quickly, in light of the disaster of
the open-border Biden Administration, have you seen an increase
at the attempt to enforce or impose sharia law in the United
States?
Ms. Mekelburg. Absolutely, because, within these
communities, they are also--they're absorbing the refugees
coming in. That's what they're hoping for, to increase the
numbers.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. I
yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. I now
recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I am a gentleman from Memphis.
Tennessee has divorced me from their State, and I accept the
divorce. I represent Memphis. Redistricting, which we've had in
this country--and I was recently redistricted--is a bigger
threat to our country than anything we're talking about here.
Sharia law is not good. I'm not for it, but that sharia law is
where people have decided they want to be in the courts, and
they agree to the jurisdiction. They're not going out on the
streets and bringing people in.
In the legislatures in the South, because of Donald Trump's
fear of oversight in the next Congress, fear that his extreme
trampling of the Constitution, selling of pardons, Emoluments
Clause violations, crypto schemes will be exposed, he has asked
Governors in Texas--he mentioned Governor Abbott, Mr. Lopez--he
asked Governor Abbott to find him five Congressional districts.
Just like he asked Mr. Raffensperger in Georgia to find him
11,000 votes, and Mr. Raffensperger heroically said no. Mr.
Abbott said, ``Yes, sir, I'll find them for you.'' That started
off this round of mid-decade redistricting to try to create a
Republican House that they couldn't get by the districts that
had been made by the 2020 census in 2022 and oftentimes by
Republican legislature. It was Republican legislature that
created my district that they then struck down. Because Callais
gave them the right to do what they wanted to do, and that's
eliminate African-American majority-minority districts and turn
out people, African-Americans and myself--I represent an
African-American district.
After 20 years, I never lost a precinct in a primary where
the African-American vote is 80 percent. That's something
wonderful in America that shows that African-Americans have
voted for 20 years based on your ability to represent and your
votes and your policies, not on your race. Yet, the Republicans
turned it around to say this discriminated against White people
because we created a majority-minority district, which was
created because we had slavery in this country for over 200-250
years or so, where Blacks were property. Then, after
Reconstruction, a little bit of goodness and fairness, we got
into the Jim Crow South. How many bubbles are on this bar of
soap? How many peas are in this jar?
They stopped Black people from having the right to vote,
and they eliminated Black representation. Once they got it
through, the Voting Rights Act, which was one of the most
important legislative acts of the 20th century, in my opinion,
where Martin Luther King and John Lewis fought hard in Selma,
Alabama, and other places, and worked with President Johnson of
the Democratic Congress and a Republican Congress--Everett
Dirksen was a big part of that. It was a bipartisan bill in
1965 to do redress and to give African-Americans an opportunity
to make up for some of the awful occurrences we have had in
this country with Jim Crow and slavery.
People died. Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman died in
Philadelphia, Mississippi, shot by racist law enforcement
officials because they went to Mississippi to dare register
people to vote in the Freedom Summer.
Medgar Evers, the head of the NAACP in Jackson, Mississippi
who was assassinated in Jackson, Mississippi. A lady named
Viola Liuzzo went down to Selma to participate in the March,
and she was shot and killed by racist guys in Alabama.
All those deaths and efforts and work put asunder by the
Supreme Court in their Callais decision and put asunder by
Republican State legislatures in Louisiana, in Alabama, and in
Tennessee. They'll do it in other States to boot.
John Roberts said the Supreme Court is not political. Then,
Alabama couldn't redistrict because it was an injunction for
them changing their districts put in by the Supreme Court until
2030. Alabama asked them to lift that injunction; they did it
in a second, and Alabama is going to have one less African-
American seat.
Don't tell me, John Roberts, that the Supreme Court of the
United States is not political. It is an arm of the Trump White
House. They took this case up when they did because Virginia
had given delegates to the Democrats, and they needed to act.
The political arm of the White House is in the Supreme Court.
Those are the types of hearings we ought to have. We ought to
have hearings on the changes in our laws that don't allow
people to be represented in the Congress and changing the
rights and the opportunities for African-Americans to be equal
citizens of this country, and it's being turned back.
Sharia law, yes, let's take it, not a good thing. Nothing
like what's going on in the legislatures and from the White
House. America is being destroyed from within: 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Memphis for his
comments.
I would now recognize a Republican from one of the New
England States, but we don't have any. I'll recognize the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for
holding this very important hearing.
Ms. Tyler, you represent the Baptist Joint Committee for
Religious Liberty.
Ms. Tyler. That's correct.
Mr. Onder. Do you believe fundamentalist Islam values
religious liberty?
Ms. Tyler. I am not here to talk about theological
positions.
Mr. Onder. OK. How about the Muslim Brotherhood, do they
value religious liberty?
Ms. Tyler. I am not--
Mr. Onder. I mean these are the groups you're here to
support. The Democrats brought you here as a witness.
Ms. Tyler. I am here for religious freedom.
Mr. Onder. How about the Deobandis, a Southern Islamic sect
affiliated with the Taliban? Do they value religious liberty?
They're in Texas right now too.
Ms. Tyler. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Onder. Yes OK. How about the Barelvis, South Asian
Sunni Islam sect? They are in Texas too.
Mr. Lytle. I'm not familiar with that group.
Mr. Onder. How about the Salafis? Let me know if you know
any of this? The Khameneis, the Turkish Islamists, all
represented in various mosques and Islamic centers in Texas. Do
any of them value religious liberty?
Mr. Lytle. I am not familiar with them.
Mr. Onder. OK. Do you believe religious liberty is valued
and upheld in the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Mr. Lytle. That's a theocracy, and so, therefore, it is not
the Constitutional democracy that we have. It is built on the
foundation of religious freedom.
Mr. Onder. Yes. How about the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Ms. Tyler. Those are examples of Islamic states that don't
support religious freedom--
Mr. Onder. Sudan? OK. Why exactly would we want to import
mass numbers of people committed to an ideology--and I'm not
talking about Islam at large--because many Muslims--most
Muslims probably do value--would like to live in a modern,
secular, or democratic republic. We're talking about radical
Islamists. We're talking about these radical Islamists
establishing beachheads in our country. Why do you defend them,
Ms. Tyler?
Ms. Tyler. Well, what I'm concerned about, of course, we
have criminal laws and antiterrorism laws that--
Mr. Onder. OK. That's good. Should we enforce our criminal
laws?
Ms. Tyler. Absolutely.
Mr. Onder. We should not tolerate sexual enslavement in the
United States of America. Right?
Ms. Tyler. I think our criminal laws protect against them.
Mr. Onder. Good. How about honor killings for a young woman
who dishonors her family in some way? That should be against
the law in the United States of America?
Ms. Tyler. As we discussed earlier, murder is illegal no
matter the justification.
Mr. Onder. Stoning for adultery, right?
Ms. Tyler. Correct.
Mr. Onder. Child marriage? Pedophilia, right?
Ms. Tyler. Those are against criminal law in the United
States--
Mr. Onder. Female circumcision is illegal under Federal law
right now?
Ms. Tyler. That's right.
Mr. Onder. We have Imams in many of these centers we're
talking about right now who advocate for those various things
in our country. We should tolerate this in the name of
religious freedom?
Ms. Tyler. We tolerate freedom of religion in this country.
We can believe whatever we want. We can act on those beliefs
without necessary government interference. In this case, there
is a compelling government interest against murder--
Mr. Onder. Against the laws I listed.
Ms. Tyler. You are not allowed to act on those beliefs
because it would be against criminal law.
Mr. Onder. Thank you. Ms. Mekelburg, I believe that
tolerating these beachheads of radical Islam in our country is
literally civilizational suicide. We've seen Islamist terrorist
attacks in this country already. We're seeing in many cases a
lack of assimilation--not by generally people who immigrate on
their own work as a computer engineer or in agriculture, what
have you, but rather when they join these very closed groups
that are committed to imposing sharia law. Tolerating that just
seems to be utter insanity and especially if we see what's
going on in Europe right now, if we look at what's going on in
Germany, London, and in France. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Ms. Mekelburg. As you said, the beachheads, that is what
Erdogan says from Turkiye, that the mosque is the beachhead.
When you hear terrorists speak about the mosque, they speak
about that being their infrastructure where all things are
launched out of. They are having these closed societies. The
goal is--and that's why you'll see, with most mosque expansion
projects happening in Texas, they are expanding, and they are
making these enclaves where all things emanate from that
mosque. If you see and you look in Germany, as you were just
talking about, Erdogan had sent hundreds of imams to head up
the mosque that were from the Turkish Government, that a lot of
them were then found out to be spies. We're seeing in this
country, whether it's Saudi Arabia, whether it's Iran, they're
all sending their proxies here. Then, they're coming and
they're having the closed societies, and they are the
beachheads, as you said.
Mr. Onder. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I now
recognize the gentlelady from Washington.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a lot of respect for the Chair of this Committee. We
work together on a lot of issues. It is bizarre to me to listen
to this hearing. Honestly now, we've suddenly made all mosques
the beachhead of terrorism across the country. This is a very
important religion around the world and certainly here in the
United States. Islam is a very, very important religion.
I go to Mr. Cohen's comments about why we're holding this
hearing again. This is a redo, by the way. We have done this
before. We're doing it again at a time when we have so many
pressing issues that we should be addressing in the
Constitution Subcommittee. We have the issue of voting rights,
the gutting of voting rights by the Supreme Court, the dilution
of the Black vote in the United States, which should be at the
top of our list to talk about. We have the unConstitutional war
in Iran that has now cost at least $29 billion of taxpayer
money that we have not had a single hearing on. There's lots of
things that we could be talking about. See the problem is, if
we were to talk about any of those things, you would actually
have to acknowledge how incredibly unpopular Republican
policies have been in driving up the price of gas in this
country. In my home State, it's almost six bucks for a gallon
of regular; almost seven bucks for gallon of diesel. You'd have
to address the rising cost of fertilizer, of groceries. The
fact that Republicans stripped healthcare away from millions of
Americans. People cannot afford healthcare in the United States
of America, the richest country in the world. We have 90
million Americans who are either uninsured, no insurance at
all, or underinsured--meaning they have some form of insurance,
but it's not enough to pay their medical bills. That is why we
have $220 billion of medical debt in the United States of
America--$220 billion.
We're not talking about any of the policies, the
unConstitutionality of all the things that this administration
has done that have really ripped apart the foundations of who
we are as a country. Instead, we're going to have a
conversation about this, sharia law. I've seen in my home State
of Washington, but across the country, the rise in anti-Muslim
bigotry that has been happening in the aftermath of October 7th
attacks and then in the aftermath of
9/11. In my home State of Washington now, Muslim Americans
reporting experiencing hate crimes, threats of violence,
hateful rhetoric that increases those threats of violence,
discriminatory policies in the workplace, unsafe interactions
with law enforcement. This hearing is unfortunately just part
of a much larger anti-Muslim, anti-Islam strategy that
Republicans have been trying to drive.
Ms. Tyler, I want to start by correcting the record. Has
there ever been a piece of legislation introduced in America to
adopt sharia law?
Ms. Tyler. No.
Ms. Jayapal. Does sharia law require Muslims living in the
United States to violate American law?
Ms. Tyler. No.
Ms. Jayapal. Are there any State or Federal courts that
follow sharia law instead of American law?
Ms. Tyler. No.
Ms. Jayapal. Have you seen any poll in this country, to
your knowledge, that puts sharia law at the top of the concerns
of Americans today?
Ms. Tyler. No, I have not.
Ms. Jayapal. Me neither. Me neither. Nowhere does it show
up as a top concern. Yet, the policies that are being proposed
include the establishment of a sharia-free America caucus and
the introduction of a bill that would deny immigration status
to anyone who quote, ``adheres to sharia law.''
Now, these policies are based on a myth that sharia is
infiltrating our American legal system and endangering the way
of life as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Could you please
clarify for everyone watching this hearing what is sharia law,
and is it any different than what Biblical law teaches
Christians about how to observe their faith?
Ms. Tyler. ``Sharia'' is translated or understood to mean
the ``path to water.'' It refers to the religious principles
that guide Muslims in their beliefs and actions. It's a set of
rules on how to pray and dress and fast and other dietary
restrictions. In that way, it's very similar to other kinds of
religious laws that Christians, Jews, or members of other faith
communities follow to guide them in how they practice their
religion.
Ms. Jayapal. In many religions, there are extreme and
violent sects that don't represent the vast majority of
observance of the faith. You have done some work documenting
the rise of extreme White Christian nationalism and its
influence in deadly shootings in Charleston, Pittsburgh, and
San Diego. I don't see any of my colleagues on the other side
creating a caucus to attack Christianity or introducing a bill
that would ban Christians from entering the country. Instead,
they want the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public
school. We have the Trump Administration officials like
Secretary Hegseth, openly declaring that, quote, ``America was
founded as a Christian Nation and remains a Christian Nation in
our DNA.'' What does that tell us about what's really going on?
Ms. Tyler. Well, I see all these actions that we're talking
about today as singling out one religion for special scrutiny
and to denigrate a lot of the stereotypes that have been
repeated here today to take the actions of a few and
extrapolate that that's what somehow all Muslims believe when
we would never, as Christians, say that, for instance, like the
killer at Mother Emanuel AME Church, who claimed that he was
there because of his religious beliefs, we wouldn't say that
this would extrapolate to all Christians.
It is a double standard and a very harmful one that causes
violence and discrimination against our Muslim neighbors.
Ms. Jayapal. Undermines the principle of religious liberty.
I thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Washington. I will now
recognize my friend and colleague from the great State of
Texas, Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding a
very important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for taking
the time to come here.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez, I would like to better understand your
story. It's important, and thanks for being here and being
boldly telling us about what happened. Can you tell us what are
the requirements to create a student club at your school?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. The requirements are to have 10 members,
a teacher that's willing to sponsor, and a room to meet.
Mr. Gill. Did the Republican club that you formed meet
those requirements?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. We did on day one.
Mr. Gill. It did? Was your club allowed to be created?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. No, we were actually notified that we
were denied due to political nature, even though other
ideological groups, including groups promoting gender-affirming
ideology, were approved.
Mr. Gill. Why do you think the school has such a sort of
obvious double standard?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. I am not sure if it's the educational
establishment. It could be any of those. It could be any of
those, it could be the principals that have been in the system
for a while, they just don't want conservative values. It's a
trend we've seen with--how Charlie Kirk was on campuses, on
high school campuses, that they think conservative values are a
threat because they're true.
Mr. Gill. How has the school administration either
encouraged or supported World Hijab Day?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Our principal actually wore the hijab two
years in a row that we know of. It could be more. She's posted,
promoted it on social media, saying she, quote, ``LOVED IT.''
They're just promoting these events like nothing, but our club
on the other hand has to receive strict--first, we weren't
approved in the first place. Then, once we were, we were the
only club that couldn't have other privileges that other groups
had. They took down our posters. There's just a lot of things
in this double standard clearly to favor the Islamic group.
Mr. Gill. Is it true that your school's libraries offer
Islamic literature, like the Quran, and other things?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Yes, so McMillan Junior High and Wiley
ISD offer a Quran but no Bible available.
Mr. Gill. No Bible. There's a Quran, but the Bible is not
allowed.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Correct.
Mr. Gill. Is that true in multiple libraries?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. From what I know, confirmed it's McMillan
Junior High is one that I know of. I can look at the other
libraries and submit them to you if I find any other findings.
Mr. Gill. OK. Have you talked to the school about why they
would allow a Quran but not a Bible?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. The principals actually run away from me
and hid. I can't have a discussion with my principals because I
act like an adult, and they act like children.
Mr. Gill. Yes, well you very much are acting like an adult.
They probably don't want to be on the record with that policy
given how egregious it is. When clubs such as yours sponsored
visitors come to the school and speak about club interests,
whatever they are, are they subject to security screenings?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. When our club has guest speakers,
including a State Representative or a Congressman, we have to
submit two weeks in advance paperwork; we have to submit a week
in advance background check; we have to submit their staff if
they're coming. All these lengthy processes, I often have to
miss my lunch period and skip lunch, skip a meal to fill these
out. On the other hand, the Islamic group got favorable
treatment.
Mr. Gill. What were the security protocols that were in
place for the Islamic group?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. From what I know, none.
Mr. Gill. None.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. From what I know.
Mr. Gill. Typically you have to go through a lengthy
background process, but this Islamic group didn't have to?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Correct. Obviously, they didn't
background check the organization because it has multiple
terror links. I guess they didn't check the sharia pamphlets
that they gave us or the Qurans with the Shahada Card--they
were perfectly fine with it because the principal was there
that day just looking at it perfectly fine.
Mr. Gill. What's been the response from the school since
you've been public and vocal about this standard.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Like I said in my opening testimony, when
my mom had requested the principal to email my teachers--
because I had to miss school for the first day after that and
had to go late the second day because of death threats, and
things like that--my mom had asked the principal to email my
teachers just to keep an extra eye on me. The principal told my
mom ``you can.'' It's really--that speaks volumes to the
approach of leadership that the school has and the school
district has because I guess they just wanted to dismiss my
safety in that moment.
Mr. Gill. You received death threats?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gill. What were some of the death threats? Could you
talk about them?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. I had people saying that they were going
to be at my house waiting for me to get home, and they were
going to shoot me. I had people telling me to kill myself. A
lot of different things. I know nobody can proclaim anything
over me because I wake up every morning with victory with
Christ.
Mr. Gill. Amen. That's exactly right. What has the school's
response been to these death threats?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Like I said, that first day was very
dismissive. I actually received a death threat last year, and I
have emails, and I could submit them to the record of the
principal saying, ``Oh, things are already taken care of.''
Very I would say downgrading it or just minimizing specific
situations. I could submit those emails to the record.
Mr. Gill. I just want to be clear, you had a threat against
your life, somebody saying that they were going to come to your
house and murder you--
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Correct.
Mr. Gill. Your school's response was dismissive.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Correct.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's the end of my time.
I appreciate it.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas. I
will now recognize the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of all the things to hold a hearing on today, why this, a
sharia-free America? Oh, that's right. It is election season,
which means Republicans turn up the fear-mongering to level 10,
and easy targets are members of our Muslim community. This
hearing allows my Republican colleagues to legitimize their
religious bigotry. Today, I am not participating in this
charade.
I have hosted numerous townhalls. I am talking to my
constituents every single day, and no one has brought up sharia
law. It is not a pressing issue, but it is a manufactured
crisis. Because you know what they were talking about? They're
talking about the crisis of this Republican Congress. The
Constitution says that we have oversight jurisdiction over the
administration, that we have the authority to authorize war,
and that we have the power of the purse. None of that is
happening right now.
The Trump Administration has launched a war of choice with
Iran, and Americans are paying the price. The President said
that he's not thinking about the pocketbooks of Americans. He
said, ``No, not at all.'' Millions of people are worried about
how they're going to eat this week.
More than one 100 million Americans carry medical or credit
card debt. Job openings have fallen to their lowest level since
2020. All of this has happened under Republicans' watch.
Working families want to know how they are going to survive
this economy and what Congress is doing to help. The
Republicans' response is to hold this obtuse hearing.
There are real oversight issues that this Committee could
be addressing right now that deal with the Constitution--like
the $1 billion ballroom that Trump wants taxpayers to pay--oh,
and, by the way, he wants to get a cut from the contractor. The
Epstein files, continuing to cover them up, and have no
accountability for survivors. The treatment of pregnant women
in Federal custody. A tax on our voting rights and civil
liberties. Rising hate crimes and extremist violence. Criminal
justice reform. Instead, Republicans are peddling anti-Muslim
conspiracy theories and complaining about world religion
studies.
Let's get into it. The Constitution does not require
Americans to abandon their religion to participate in society.
It protects the free exercise of religion. Government does not
get to decide which faiths are acceptable and which communities
deserve suspicion.
For many Muslims, sharia simply refers to personal
religious guidance about prayer, fasting, charity, or family
life, not some attempt to replace the United States
Constitution, and suggesting otherwise unfairly paints millions
of Americans with a broad and dangerous brush.
The religions that I know about are Christianity,
Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. All are premised on
peace. Real talk, any religion can get radicalized.
Christianity is being radicalized and weaponized right now. We
can talk about that.
The Tree of Life Synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh. Dylann
Roof massacring parishioners in South Carolina. The murder of
Minnesota Rep. Hortman and her husband. The massacre of Sikh
temple members in Wisconsin. The radically charged plot to
attack the Baltimore power grid. All violent crimes committed
by radicalized White Evangelical extremists.
You talk about American values. Ms. Mekelburg referenced
that women are less than half a man that--well we're denying
women healthcare. You talked about failing our children. Well,
we're doing that here, cutting SNAP benefits, cutting access to
education. You talked about marrying pedophiles. Well, we're
covering up the Epstein files.
Islam is not doing that. The American Government is doing
that.
You know what? I'm not safe on the streets either. It has
nothing to do with being Islam, which I'm not. It's about being
Black. You talk about Saudi Arabia. Well, let's talk about
Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from Saudi Arabia. Nobody
seems to be concerned about that.
If we're going to get into it, let's get into it. The
American people deserve committees that hold hearings grounded
in facts and not bigotry. There has been zero evidence that
Muslim Americans are attempting to impose religious law on the
United States.
Last I checked, people are just trying to figure out if
they have enough money for gas and to buy a dozen eggs. With
that, I have some UCs that I want to enter into the record, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Roy. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, sir. First, the Scientific
Study of Religion, ``Christian Nationalism and Violence Against
Religious Minorities in the United States: A Quantitative
Analysis''--
Second, PRRI, from May 2026, ``No Quarter? American
Evangelicals and Political Violence.''
Third, the Center for American Progress, 2020, ``How White
Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics.''
Fourth, from The Conversation, August 2025, ``Active Clubs
are White Supremacy's New Dangerous Frontier.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I also have a unanimous consent request. I would
like to insert a statement for the record from our colleague
Keith Self, my colleague from Texas, titled, ``Sharia for
America: Why Political Islamist & Sharia Laws are Incompatible
with the United States Constitution, Part Two.''
Without objection.
Mr. Roy. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Scanlon. Yes, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from
Representatives Carson, Omar, Talib, and Simon--all of whom are
Muslim American Members of Congress.
I also have a unanimous consent request to enter into the
record statements from the following organizations voicing
strong opposition to today's hearing: A coalition letter signed
by 35 organizations that work to protect and advance religious
freedom and civil rights, CAIR, the U.S. Council of Muslim
Organizations, and the Interfaith Alliance.
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I'll now recognize my other colleague from Texas--
wait hold on.
Mr. Raskin. Just one more UC.
Mr. Roy. Yes, sure.
Mr. Raskin. Forgive me. This is by Jessica Waters. It was
in MS Now, and it's about the violent threats that she received
after testifying before this Committee in the questioning of
Mr. Gill, May 8, 2026.
Mr. Roy. Without objection. I will now recognize the other
gentleman from Texas, my good friend, Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lopez, you're a 16-
year-old sophomore at Wiley High School. Did you ever imagine
that your high school in Texas, of all places, our great State
of Texas, of course, would become a breeding ground for pro-
sharia material and Islamic conversation?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. I would never imagine that we would have
a hearing questioning the legitimacy of terror-linked
organizations going to schools. I would never believe we would
have this. That's the America we live in, and it's a sad
situation.
Mr. Hunt. Do you think there's an incongruency in the way
you are treated as a Christian in your school and the
juxtaposition of that in the way that your school is welcoming
sharia law and Islamic doctrine.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Yes, there's a clear double standard.
Mr. Hunt. It's a shame that we are here today. I'm sorry
that we have failed you, but this is why we have this caucus
because we're going to make sure that we get this right and
everybody is treated fairly regardless of your race, religion,
or creed.
To some people in this room, what I am about to say may
sound a bit controversial, but it's not controversial because
it's true. America is a Christian Nation. We're founded on
Christian values. Our Founders believe that our rights did not
come from government, but they came from God. Those ideals
shaped our institutions, our culture, our laws, and the very
moral foundation and fabric of what I know as the greatest
country in the world.
Now, America is also a country that welcomes people from
all backgrounds of every culture and faith. That's actually
what is a part of our greatness. As somebody like me, that
fought in combat to ensure that anyone can come to this Nation
and believe what they want to believe, and believe in the First
and Second Amendment rights, I welcome that more than you can
ever believe because I laid my life down on the line to ensure
that this would happen. Let's be clear about something:
Assimilation to American values and ideas matter.
When we begin importing belief systems and cultural values
that are fundamentally incompatible with the principles that
built this Nation, we should not be surprised when the social
fabric begins to fray. Let me be clear: This is not hateful.
This is not racist. This is not xenophobic. I'm not racist.
I've been Black for like my whole life for like 44 years.
I'll say that sharia law has no place to usurp our
Constitution in these United States of America and especially
in our schools and especially in our public institutions.
America's legal system is rooted in the Constitution and equal
justice under the law, not religious extremism or parallel
legal systems.
We have learned from many of our colleagues on the Left
that this tends to be how they tack in this general direction.
The Ten Commandments are not allowed: Bad; Islamic pamphlets:
Good; Ten Commandments: Bad; Free Qurans in schools: Good; Ten
Commandments: Bad; and Understanding sharia law brochures:
Good. This is the hypocrisy that we Christian Americans are
quite sick of.
The same people who mock or marginalize America's founding
values suddenly become deeply tolerant when the ideology in
question is directed against Western traditions and
institutions.
Meanwhile, sharia law is normalized and distributed to
children in school, while expressions of traditional faith are
treated like a threat.
Here's how things should work: Math? yes; free qurans? no;
history? yes; Sharia brochures? no; science? yes; and Shahada
cards? no. This is a very simple idea that should be understood
by all Americans.
One of my best friends is a Muslim-American, and he is a
Fightin' Texas Aggie, but he actually sees himself as an
American first and has fully embraced our culture and what it
means to be an American. That's good. That's what we want.
That's why we call this place a melting pot.
I am seeing a lot of talk from my colleagues on the Left,
too, as we shift toward this reinvigorated talk about Jim Crow
and the past of this country. As someone who was a direct
descendant of a slave, as someone whose great-great grandfather
was born on a plantation, I can assure you slavery is over. Jim
Crow is dead.
When I go anywhere, I don't see any ``White Only'' signs. I
don't. I promise you. I am a Black man that represents a White
majority district in Texas. The great-great grandson of a man
born on a plantation stands before you today as a proud
Conservative Republican from Texas, as a believer and follower
in Christ, and as a believer in what this country can be if we
allow equality for not just Muslim-Americans, not just
Buddhist-Americans, but also Christian-Americans like yourself.
God bless you, young man. You give me a lot of hope for the
future of this country. Thank you for having the courage.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt. I now
recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I would like to return to perhaps
the purpose of the hearing, which is to establish facts rather
than fiction. With that, I'd like to have unanimous consent to
introduce a CBS article from February 17, 2026, ``Wiley ISD,
School District Investigates How the Why Islam Group Set Up on
Campus Without Approval.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. I mean, as that story and others show, that
the school district did in fact investigate why an outside
group came in and set up. In fact, staff members were
disciplined for not following school procedures. Let's just
pull back a little bit here and try to reground this hearing in
some facts. Because it's been pretty well-established by now.
There is no credible evidence that anyone in Texas or in the
U.S. generally is trying to impose sharia law on Americans.
It's really--this whole hearing is so offensive.
I have a lot of Muslim constituents who are wonderful
constituents and participate fully in our community. I'm very
proud that they're my constituents. To hear folks being
vilified in this way, trying to have this anti-Muslim rhetoric,
trying to tar every member of a faith with the worst actions of
a few is pretty outrageous and especially when some of those
actions are complete fiction.
Look, it is a real change for the Republican Party in this
country. Ms. Tyler, in the wake of 9/11, we saw a spike in
violence against American Muslims. Then, President George W.
Bush used the power of his office to defend Islam and American
values. He said, and I quote, ``The face of terror is not the
true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam
is peace.'' He reminded us that America counts millions of
Muslims among our citizens, and they make incredibly valuable
contributions to our community, to our country, and they need
to be treated with respect.
Our Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten this
example and are using the House of Representatives to platform
religious bigotry so they can fear-monger in an election year
when gas prices are spiking due to an illegal war sparked by an
unpopular President from their party.
When the consequences of this demagoguery for American
Muslims and all Americans are very real, you have to look no
further than the Islamic Society of Orange County, which last
month experienced a spike in threats after Ms. Mekelburg
published some tweets, without foundation, that they were
trying to start a sharia compound there. It was complete
fiction, but it caused a spike in threats.
Ms. Tyler, can you explain how religious fear-mongering
endangers American Muslims in our communities and undermines
the religious liberty of all Americans of all faiths?
Ms. Tyler. Yes, these attempts to paint with a broad brush,
to bring all members of a faith, again to mark them with the
actions of the dangerous and few makes everyone less safe and
makes everyone less free.
I talked in my testimony about the real-world
discrimination that Muslim Americans face because of their
faith. Also, when we think about the hate crimes that you've
noted, political violence of all kinds is an urgent problem in
this country.
As I hear about the threats that have been made to some of
my fellow witnesses today, that should disturb us all. The more
that we feed into misinformation, stereotyping, that makes all
of us less safe and less free as a society.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I appreciate that. We've got plenty
of examples. I think our colleague referred to some examples of
Christian extremists who had gone out and committed violence.
We have got examples of a Tennessee Baptist minister who was an
advocate for corporal punishment and even starvation of
children. Three kids died because of what he was preaching. We
don't condemn all Christianity as a result.
As you pointed out previously, we have criminal justice and
other American laws that deal with criminal behavior. Can you
comment further on that?
Ms. Tyler. Yes, our criminal system takes care of the
threats to the extent that there are real threats that have
been put in the midst of everything else we've talked about
here today. Criminal law takes care of that. The First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution assures that no religious
law can supersede those laws. That is protection enough. That's
why these scare tactics are really just that. It's not a real
problem in this country.
Ms. Scanlon. Well, that's where, certainly, I'm not one who
goes about citing George W. Bush often, but the impact of words
and leadership matters when people demonize other folks.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to have unanimous consent to
introduce an LA Times article, from April 17, 2026, ``Islamic
Society of Orange County Under Heightened Security After Online
Threats.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize--I thank the gentlelady for
her questions. I will now recognize the gentleman from
Wisconsin for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you. I'd like to thank you for
having this hearing at a time that happens when my own few
hours a week that I have free, I am reading Elise Stefanik's
book on anti-Semitism in the American university. It's
interesting to look at the number of people and analyzing what
happened on October 7th in this country, seemed to be on the
side of the people who were raping the little children and
chopping off heads and stuff. It's shocking there are so many
people like that in the United States. I can certainly
understand why a lot of Americans are very concerned that
people like that were brought into the country. Again, not an
isolated couple of people, but it seems to me whole groups of
people took the October 7th attacks as a kind of almost as a
call to arms. They seem to be in favor of this sort of thing,
which is kind of shocking. I wish more Americans would read
those books, so they knew how people surrounding us think.
We'll start with Ms. Mek,--I guess we call you that, huh,
Ms. Mek. That's what they have here. For Members of this
Committee who are not familiar with Epic City Projects, can you
walk us through what the development is, and behind it what the
organizers have said publicly about--
Ms. Mekelburg. If you don't mind, could I actually just
respond to something that you just brought up about the October
7th? What I find interesting is what I heard her just say about
George Bush. George Bush, after 9/11, stood with Nihad Awad,
who is the head of CAIR.
After October 7th, Nihad Awad celebrated it. Nihad Awad
actually was celebrating, quote, ``breaking the siege.'' When
I'm hearing somebody refer to George Bush as if he is an
Islamic expert--he is not. When I'm hearing you're talking
October 7th, we have people in the room from CAIR right now. We
have people who are from CAIR who have somehow managed to make
themselves the victims of October 7th. It's still we haven't
been able to have these conversations about how the largest
Islamic organizations in this country were not denouncing what
happened on October 7th. They were actually not only
celebrating it, but they're still marching in the streets in
support of what happened.
Mr. Grothman. It's shocking that these people would be left
in this country.
Ms. Mekelburg. Shocking. Bot only that, but they mock what
has happened. All the things that you're talking about--
Mr. Grothman. I'll give you a question.
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. We've got horrible nuts out there, and that's
established. Have a lot of the--are there any mainstream Muslim
groups who are attacking or boldly trying to separate
themselves from these groups that seem to be in favor of
October 7th?
Ms. Mekelburg. No, and--
Mr. Grothman. None?
Ms. Mekelburg. I haven't seen one group that has come
forward and has been advocating and defending. I've heard a lot
of ``victim'' talk. I have heard how they have been the
victims. I have heard how they have been dealing with hate and
fake crimes.
Mr. Grothman. Well, wait a minute, that's like, that almost
can't be true. How about the other three of you? Has anybody
heard of any significant Muslim groups trying to disassociate
themselves or condemn those Muslim groups who are in favor of
the October 7th attacks?
Mr. Blair. Not that I'm aware of, sir.
Mr. Grothman. I can't believe that. None of them?
Ms. Tyler. I have not done that research, but I can tell
you that Muslim Americans spend a lot of time disclaiming
violence because of being lumped in unfairly with again the
violent actions of the extremists in their group.
Ms. Mekelburg. This is the game we play. We're talking here
about--you're talking individuals, and I'm talking about an
ideology. We're going back and forth, and we want to keep
conflating the two. Islam is very clear on how they feel about
the unbeliever. There's over 109 verses in the Quran that say
I, the unbeliever, they rage violence toward me. You keep
trying to conflate it, and I'm speaking solely on Islam.
As far as the crimes and the hate crimes you keep talking
about, I don't ever see the proof of this. I hear a lot of
accusations. When I go back and I try to find the records, I
don't see anything that has registered those.
Mr. Grothman. Just one more comment, Ms. Mek. In my
district, we have an ethnic group, the Hmong. The Hmong have
festivals; they try so hard to be loved by the broader American
community. They not only don't dislike police; they hire their
own police if they're having a festival because they're so
concerned about what America thinks of that group. I'm just
saying; you don't see that same thing in the Muslim--I met with
my Muslims in my area, but it's kind of shocking to me that
nobody on the stage here can give us some examples of maybe
donating money to the victims in Israel or whatever, doing
something to separate themselves from this--
Mr. Roy. The gentleman's time has expired. I appreciate the
gentleman from Wisconsin. I appreciate his questions. I will
now recognize myself for five minutes of questions.
Mr. Blair, you testified that you spent a lot of time at
the border, working with Border Patrol, former service in the
United States Army. You testified that a significant number of
people came into the United States from places from all over
the world, including places of the majority Muslim countries.
Correct?
Mr. Blair. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. Is it correct, roughly, that we've got roughly
50--one-, two-, three-million foreign-born people in the United
States representing about 16 percent of the population?
Mr. Blair. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Roy. Have we seen an enormous uptick of individuals
from majority Muslim countries since 9/11?
Mr. Blair. Yes, sir, we have.
Mr. Roy. Upwards of about five million people?
Mr. Blair. Yes, sir, we have.
Mr. Roy. Is that having a significant, cultural impact in
the United States?
Mr. Blair. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. Roy. Is that worthy of exploration and understanding
that impact on our history, heritage, and who we are as a
people?
Mr. Blair. One hundred percent.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Hunter-Lopez, people have been questioning
about why we're here. You've testified here on the record that
you've had very personal firsthand experience of disparate
treatment based on your values as a Christian citizen of the
United States and those promoting Islam in your school.
Correct?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Correct.
Mr. Roy. You've seen firsthand how there's a promotion in a
small Texas town, now an increasingly suburban Texas town, the
Dallas Ford Metroplex, in promoting an Islamic culture over a
Christian culture in your school. That's roughly your
testimony. Is that correct?
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. Correct. Every day I have more teachers
and students coming up to me saying that they're realizing
what's going on because, at first, people don't want to speak
up because they'll be labeled Islamophobe or xenophobe or
anything.
Mr. Roy. That's right.
Mr. Hunter-Lopez. The people are starting to wake up to
what's going on.
Mr. Roy. Thank you. Ms. Tyler, are you familiar with the
significant amount of rape gangs in the United Kingdom?
Ms. Tyler. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Roy. Are you familiar with the significant amount of
rape gangs in the United kingdom?
Ms. Tyler. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Roy. OK. It's been pretty much all over the news. Very
large numbers of people being raped in the United Kingdom by
foreign nationals in the United Kingdom with significant
allegations of it being heavily by Pakistanis and other
individuals that have been immigrated into the United Kingdom.
Are you familiar with that at all?
Ms. Tyler. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Mekelburg, are you familiar with that?
Ms. Mekelburg. Very familiar, yes.
Mr. Roy. Right. Are you also familiar with the arbitration
agreements that were adopted in the United Kingdom that have
allowed significantly to have societies and cultures that are
separated from the civil laws of the United Kingdom?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes, I am. Yes.
Mr. Roy. That is a last 20-years kind of phenomena, right,
where these arbitration agreements are allowing individuals in
a separate community adhering to sharia law to be separated
from at least 85 different tribunals in the United Kingdom to
be able to carry out sharia alongside and separate from or even
over civil law in the United Kingdom?
Ms. Mekelburg. Correct.
Mr. Roy. Are we seeing similar things occurring in the
United States?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes, we are.
Mr. Roy. Are we seeing it in the Dallas-Fort Worth
Metroplex, for example?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Did Governor Abbott have to take action to deal
with some of these separate tribunals to stop their existence?
Ms. Mekelburg. Correct.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Mek, if you could extrapolate on what is one
of the most important things we need to address here, which is
what you've mentioned, is Islam as political ideology, do you
believe that Islam is compatible to Western civilization?
Ms. Mekelburg. It is not.
Mr. Roy. I agree with you. Do you believe that Islam in
carrying out its mission is waging jihad against the West?
Ms. Mekelburg. Absolutely.
Mr. Roy. Is that a part of the Muslim Brotherhood
memorandum from 1991?
Ms. Mekelburg. The project, both memorandums.
Mr. Roy. It is a part of that memorandum and other
memoranda, correct?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes. Correct.
Mr. Roy. Are there organizations, not just CAIR--other
organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood to advance
jihad against Western civilization, including specifically
targeting Texas and the United States?
Ms. Mekelburg. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Is that documented?
Ms. Mekelburg. One hundred percent.
Mr. Roy. Are there imams that are active in Texas and
throughout the United States that are similarly championing
such jihad against the West to carry out the tenets of Islam?
Ms. Mekelburg. We have them in their own words, yes.
Mr. Roy. You've put those online. They are out for display.
You've seen words from imams in the United States saying
precisely this language?
Ms. Mekelburg. All across the United States but very
heavily in Texas.
Mr. Roy. I'm going to give you the last minute here to
close about your concerns about why this matters. I'm trying to
put a bow around all this, that we've had a massive
immigration, a massive cultural shift, direct impact on
schools, for example, in the State of Texas, and a very clear
mission tied to memoranda and individuals that have been
frankly associated with the Holy Land Foundation prosecutions,
other terrorist organizations, CAIR, known unindicted
coconspirators, and now we see what's happening around the
country. Last 30 seconds for you to put a bow around this.
Ms. Mekelburg. What concerns me is we've imported an
ideology that we have absolutely no education about. We have
seen all across the country, I'm seeing politicians here today
that are working with them. I'm seeing people who I don't know
whether you know or not, but they're infiltrating our society.
They have come here to take over the society. They've written
it down in the project in a 12-point plan. You can read it for
yourself. It's written down in the memorandum.
They've come to make this country, like they've made
countries all across the world, Islamic. If we do not take
action--we've already seen what's happened in Europe--we are
going to be worse off than the U.K., because we have the
thought leaders in this country, and they are waging jihad on
our society.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady. The Ranking Member--
Ms. Scanlon. I request that Ms. Tyler get her extra minute
now if there's anything she'd like to respond to.
Mr. Roy. The Ranking Member has asked for an additional
minute. Out of courtesy, I will do so. I will point out that
I've given significant extra time to go over. I did so for the
gentlelady from Washington. I did so for the gentlelady from
California and others to have extra time. I'm trying to make
sure that I'll do that. Out of request from the gentlelady from
Pennsylvania, the Ranking Member, I'll give Ms. Tyler a minute.
Ms. Tyler. Thank you. One thing that's disturbed me today
is that we are talking about political Islam. Islam is a
religion. It's practiced by two billion people around the world
and approximately one percent of people in the United States,
about four million people in the United States. The numbers are
a little hard to pinpoint. There's nothing inherently political
about Islam. Islam, like all other religions, can be used as an
instrument of the State to gain and hold onto political power.
Fortunately, as we are all celebrating in this 250th year
of American independence, we live in a country that's built on
the foundation of religious freedom, that protects everyone's
right to believe or not to believe, to adhere to any religion,
and that the government stays out of the way of religion. The
government's role is not to dictate, and there is no
establishment of religion in this country.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. I was
happy to give time.
I'm going to close by pointing out that the explanatory
memorandum explicitly states in black letter text, quote, ``A
kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.''
With that, this concludes today's hearing. We thank the
witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=119267.
[all]