Should Texas taxpayers be forced to fund institutions with connections to radical Islamist networks? They will if certain activist groups have their way.
In a letter sent to the Texas attorney general last year, acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock raised concerns that numerous schools applying to take part in Texas’s new school choice program, Texas Education Freedom Accounts, were accredited through an organization with ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR has been designated by Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) as a foreign terrorist organization.
Several parents sued the comptroller because their Islamic schools had not yet been approved for the new program, which would give them access to parent-directed taxpayer dollars. Ignoring the ties to CAIR, their argument is that the comptroller was only blocking their admission to the program because they are Muslim schools.
DON’T FALL FOR ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ LEGISLATION
Texas leaders such as Abbott are right to reject that claim. The Constitution does not require Americans to ignore legitimate national security risks, particularly when applicants are seeking to access public dollars.
As Judge Richard Posner famously warned, “our Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Texans expect their government to ensure that taxpayer money does not flow to institutions connected to terrorists or hostile foreign regimes.
That concern is not speculative.
Recent investigations have uncovered troubling evidence about Islamist influence networks operating in Texas.
A major report by the Middle East Forum examining Islamic institutions across the state concluded that “six major Islamist networks influence more than a quarter of Islamic nonprofit institutions in Texas,” controlling a majority of the sector’s assets and revenue.
In other words, a relatively small number of ideological organizations wield enormous institutional influence.
The report further warned that these groups form “an interconnected ecosystem of schools, mosques, charities, and advocacy organizations” reinforcing one another’s influence across Texas institutions.
A separate investigation examined a North Texas private school eligible for public funding. According to the report, Brighter Horizons Academy was “established and staffed by figures involved with convicted Hamas operatives and designated terror organizations.”
The findings become even more troubling when examining the curriculum used within that network.
One textbook praises Islamist cleric Jamal Badawi for his “exceptional eloquence.” Federal prosecutors, however, identified Badawi as an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case — the largest terrorism-financing prosecution in U.S. history.
Badawi himself has described Hamas suicide bombers as “freedom fighters” and “martyrs.”
Supporters of the lawsuit claim without evidence that raising these concerns are an unconstitutional expression of hostility toward religion.
That’s false. Texas is a state that fiercely protects religious liberty. Texas Education Freedom Accounts are open to families of every faith — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or none at all.
But religious liberty cannot be used as a shield for pursuing an agenda backed by known terrorist organizations that seek to undermine the constitutional system itself. Islamists seek to weaponize our Constitution to undermine the very freedoms it was designed to protect.
America has faced ideological threats before.
During the Cold War, the United States defended freedom while confronting Marxist revolutionary movements seeking to undermine Western institutions. Today, a similar dynamic is emerging through what scholars call the Red–Green Alliance — the convergence between radical secular Marxist movements (“Red”) and Islamist political movements (“Green”).
Though different in origin, both share the same strategic objective: weakening the institutions of Western civilization and overthrowing the U.S.’s Constitutional Republic.
Islamist movements historically advance through three complementary strategies.
It rarely begins with violence. As with the Chinese Communist Party’s use of Confucius Institutes, Islamists begin with soft power.
Recognition, then normalization, and finally institutional legitimacy.
From there comes lawfare, using U.S. courts to silence critics claiming religious discrimination, then reshaping public policy, and eventually terrorism, carried out by militant Islamists. Texas is increasingly confronting all three.
Thousands of Texans have raised concerns about extremist networks attempting to gain legitimacy — and potentially public funding — through educational institutions. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
Austin offers a telling example of how ideological normalization works.
The city normalized the “Red” years ago through official recognition of Cesar Chavez Day, complete with the activist rallying cry ¡Sí Se Puede! — later nationalized as “Yes We Can” by former President Barack Obama as part of his call to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”
Soon after, Austin ISD celebrated Trans Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday, then eliminated Good Friday from its school calendar and replaced it with César Chávez and Dolores Huerta Day. And the district continues to recognize Eid al-Fitr, one of Islam’s most significant holidays.
This is not organic cultural change. It is institutional signaling—the normalization of radical ideological movements through education and political systems.
Proclamations soften resistance. Institutions adapt. Dissent is reframed as intolerance. The Overton window shifts.
Meanwhile, this growing threat is not limited to cultural influence.
Just weeks ago, a gunman — currently being investigated for terrorism — opened fire outside a bar in downtown Austin, murdering three people and wounding thirteen others while wearing clothing declaring “Property of Allah.”
And days later in Virginia, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, a man previously jailed for attempting to support the Islamic State, carried out another attack now being investigated as terrorism.
Americans can debate policy responses. But ignoring the ideological motivations behind such violence is not serious leadership, it’s cowardice.
Texas leaders are taking a different approach. Attorney General Ken Paxton recently confirmed that the State Comptroller Kelly Hancock has full authority to prevent taxpayer funds from reaching schools tied to terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments.
Abbott, himself a former attorney general, has made the same point: “Texas taxpayers should never be forced to subsidize extremism.” That is not discrimination; it is a constitutional responsibility.
The United States was founded on the principle of religious liberty, but also on the understanding that liberty must be defended against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
UNIONS SAID NOBODY WANTED SCHOOL CHOICE IN TEXAS. 100,000 FAMILIES DISAGREED
Texas leaders understand that foundational truth when taking their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. They are expanding education freedom while ensuring taxpayer dollars never fund institutions tied to terrorism or hostile regimes.
In doing so, Texas is demonstrating something the rest of the country would be wise to remember: A free society can defend religious liberty — and still refuse to finance those who seek to destroy it.
Mandy Drogin is one of the foremost education reform leaders in Texas, bringing extensive experience in managing grassroots organizing, marketing, legislative campaigns, and coalition-building.
