When three Muslim worshippers were murdered at the Islamic Center of San Diego this spring, many Americans reacted with shock. But for those who have been tracking the escalation of anti-Muslim rhetoric in our politics, the tragedy was not shocking at all. It was the predictable outcome of a deliberate, coordinated campaign to portray Muslims as an existential danger to the United States.
According to the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH), Republican elected officials increased their anti-Muslim posts by 1,450% between February 2025 and March 2026. That is not a random spike. It is a political strategy: one that has created a climate in which violence becomes thinkable, even inevitable.
The San Diego attack, carried out by two teenagers who were radicalized online, is the human cost of that strategy. But to understand how we arrived at this moment, we must look beyond the shooters and examine the political ecosystem that taught them whom to hate.
A Party Infrastructure Built on Manufacturing a Threat
The CSOH report says that in more than 1,100 posts on their official social media accounts, Republican members of Congress and governors have promoted conspiracy theories about Muslim Americans, called for the deportation and denaturalization of Muslims, promoted negative portrayals of Islam, described U.S. cities with significant Muslim populations as “conquered” or “invaded”, weaponized domestic terror attacks to vilify Islam and Muslims even when no Muslim had anything to do with them, used dehumanizing language, and invoked claims of a supposed Muslim takeover of the United Kingdom and Europe to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria and fearmongering at home.
The “Sharia” conspiracy appeared in 48 percent of posts, serving as the campaign’s master frame. This conspiracy theory can be traced to a clear ignition point. On February 24, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott reposted an X message from anti-Muslim provocateur Amy Mek, who had previously attacked a proposed Muslim-led housing development near Dallas known as EPIC City. Mek labeled the project a “Sharia city” and blasted out alarmist warnings like “Alert Texas,” “Warning Texas,” and “Sharia City is Being Built in Texas – And YOU Are Helping Fund It!” Her posts reached millions. When Abbott amplified her message, declaring that “Sharia law” would never be allowed in Texas, his repost alone drew 3.6 million views and more than 57,000 likes, instantly mainstreaming a fringe conspiracy theory. On November 18, 2025, Abbott went even further, designating the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations.This move – directed at an American civil‑rights group whose core mission is to defend the constitutional rights of Muslim communities – laid bare the depth of his Islamophobia
Nearly a third of all posts (322 posts) frame Muslims through the lens of terrorism, jihad, and national security. These posts weaponize real incidents of violence, for example, the Boulder, Colorado attack and the Austin, Texas shooting, exploiting them to characterize Muslims and Islam more broadly as violent threats.
More problematically, 231 posts embedded anti-Muslim rhetoric within legislative action, which demonstrates that the hate campaign is not confined to inflammatory social media rhetoric, but is being systematically woven into the institutional machinery of governance. Posts in this category serve as a bridge between online rhetoric and real-world policy, giving conspiracy theories a veneer of legitimacy that social media posts alone cannot provide.
One hundred and sixteen posts link anti-Muslim rhetoric to immigration policy, framing Muslim immigration as an invasion or infiltration that poses a direct threat to the American way of life. The language includes terms such as “illegal aliens,” “mass migration,” “conquer,” and “invaders.”
Lastly, 64 posts contain explicit demands for the denaturalization, deportation, or expulsion of Muslims.
The CSOH Report identifies 46 Republican officialswho published 1,111 postsbetween February 2025 and March 2026, repeatedly pushing bigotry and anti-Muslim narratives across social media, legislative proposals, and public appearances. Texas and Florida-based Republican officials produced 71 percent of all such posts. Five members of Congress produced 73 percent of all posts. Rep. Randy Fine alone accounted for 325 posts(29 percent).
- Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), who wrote on May 21, 2025, after two Israeli embassy staffers were killed in Washington, D.C., that “Muslim terror has come to our Nation’s Capital tonight,“ and declared that “these demons must be put down by any means necessary,” although the suspect, Elias Rodriguez (who has since been charged for the killings), is not Muslim and has no Muslim background. During the New York mayoral contest, he called Zohran Mamdani – “proud Muslim terrorist” who “would do to New York City what Khomeini and Khamenei did to Tehran. We cannot let radical Muslims turn America into a Shiite caliphate.”On October 3, 2025,Rep. Fine posted that “fear of Islam is rational” and “Islamophobia is a lie”.
- Rep. Keith Self (TX), who is the most prolific promoter of the Sharia scare, constituting 176 of his 191 posts (or 92 percent) to Sharia.
- Rep. Chip Roy (TX), who has repeatedly referenced defending “Western civilization” from Islam.
- Sen. Tommy Tuberville (AL), who posted on his social media account: “Radical Islam has DESTROYED Europe. If we don’t call out this extreme ideology, America will be next.”
- Rep. Andy Ogles (TN), who wrote on X “New York City has been occupied by muslim invaders. DEPORTATIONS NOW”, and that Muslims “don’t belong in American society”.
These are not fringe voices. They are sitting members of Congress, committee members, and influential figures shaping the Republican Party’s messaging.
But the ecosystem extends far beyond the House. It includes senators, media personalities, and Trump-era officials whose rhetoric reaches millions.
Senator Ted Cruzof Texas isan ardent Christian Zionist who continues to play a significant role in legitimizing anti-Muslim suspicion at the national level. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he called for patrolling Muslim neighborhoods, reminiscent of surveillance tactics used against Japanese Americans during World War II. He has also amplified conspiracy theories about “Islamist infiltration” of the U.S. government and aligned himself with anti-Muslim activists whose organizations have been designated hate groups.
When a senator with his national platform suggests that Muslim communities require special policing, it sends a powerful signal: that Muslims are a suspect class. When a senator like Tommy Tuberville repeatedly warns of imagined “Islamic threats,” he reinforces the same message – turning baseless fear into a political weapon.
And the same message is echoed even more forcefully by those in higher positions of authority.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly used religiously charged language to frame geopolitical conflicts as battles against “Islamic evil.” As reported by The New York Times (Oct. 26, 2023), Johnson described the conflict with Hamas as a struggle against “Islamic evil,” casting political violence in explicitly theological terms. During the Iran conflict, he went further, saying that Iran views the United States as the “Great Satan” because of its “misguided religion,” a formulation documented by The Washington Post (Feb. 1, 2024) that blurs the line between criticizing a regime and demonizing a faith.
As Speaker, Johnson gives institutional weight to anti-Muslim narratives. His rhetoric signals to millions of Americans that Islam itself – not extremist groups, but the religion – is a threat.
And the pattern becomes even more troubling inside the executive branch.
Pete Hegseth’s rise from Fox News firebrand to Secretary of War has only magnified the reach of his long‑standing anti‑Muslim rhetoric. On Fox & Friends, he repeatedly claimed that “Islam hates us” and warned that “Sharia values” were infiltrating America — language he used in multiple segments between 2015 and 2019 (Fox News, Jan. 2015; Fox & Friends, June 2017). He also argued that Muslim immigration posed a national security threat, insisting that “we have a Muslim problem in this world” (Fox News, Nov. 2015). Those talking points once served as red meat for a cable audience; now they carry the weight of federal authority.
Hegseth’s appointment has effectively moved a set of fringe ideological claims into the center of U.S. military messaging. His public statements continue to blur the line between combating extremist groups and casting suspicion on Muslim communities as a whole – a framing that echoes the same “civilizational conflict” narrative he championed on air. And because he was already a close Trump ally and informal advisor, his transition into a Cabinet-level role has institutionalized a worldview that treats Islam itself as a strategic danger.
The result is a dangerous feedback loop: rhetoric that once inflamed viewers now shapes policy discussions, military posture, and the national security narrative. In Hegseth’s hands, anti-Muslim bigotry is no longer just a media product – it is a governing philosophy.
Several Trump administration officials continue to help transform anti-Muslim suspicion into policy. Their rhetoric became law.
Donald Trump: The Megaphone That Made Hate Mainstream
No figure has done more to normalize anti-Muslim hostility in American politics than Donald Trump, and his return to the White House has only amplified that pattern. His 2015 call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” marked a turning point in modern political discourse, the first time in generations that a major presidential candidate openly advocated discrimination against an entire religious group. As president, he enacted the Muslim Ban, separating families, stranding students, and signaling to millions of American Muslims that their faith made them suspect.
Trump’s rhetoric has not softened with time. In recent months, he has suggested that “something is wrong” with the “DNA” of people from Muslim‑majority countries – remarks reported by The Guardian and The Washington Post in late 2025 and condemned by civil‑rights groups as echoing the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics. Statements like these do not merely stigmatize a community; they legitimize the idea that Muslims are biologically suspect or inherently dangerous, pushing bigotry into the realm of racial determinism.
What makes this pattern even more striking is its selective nature. While Trump continues to cast Muslims as a threat in his political messaging, he has shown no hesitation in cultivating lucrative relationships with wealthy Gulf monarchies and business elites. His political hostility toward Muslims has never interfered with his willingness to accept investments, licensing deals, or lavish patronage from Arab sheikhs and authoritarian kingdoms. The contradiction is glaring: Muslims are framed as a danger when it serves his political narrative, yet welcomed as partners when they can enrich his personal brand.
Trump’s words carry weight: not only because he is president again, but because his rhetoric has long served as a cue for others. When the nation’s most powerful political figure repeatedly paints Muslims as outsiders, threats, or biologically flawed, it does not remain abstract. It shapes public perception. It emboldens extremists. And it contributes to the climate in which violence, like the San Diego mosque attack, becomes thinkable.
How Rhetoric Radicalizes
The San Diego shooters were teenagers, but the ideas that fueled their hatred were not teenage inventions. Investigators found a manifesto filled with white supremacist ideology, Nazi symbols, and explicit calls for the “extermination” of Muslims.
Where do young Americans learn to think this way?
They learn it from online spaces where political rhetoric is amplified and distorted. They learn it from public officials who portray Muslims as invaders, terrorists, or enemies of the state. They learn it from a political culture that treats Islam as a civilizational threat.
When Cruz, Tuberville, Fine, Ogles, Abbott, Johnson, Hegseth, and Trump portray Muslims as a threat, they are not merely expressing opinions. They are providing ideological fuel.
And some people – especially young, angry, isolated people –act on that fuel.
The San Diego Attack: A Tragedy Foretold
On the day of the attack, the two Christian teenagers arrived at the Islamic Center of San Diego armed with multiple firearms. They opened fire during midday prayer, killing three men:Amin Abdullah, a father of eight; Mansour Kaziha, a community volunteer; and Nader Awad, a local business owner.
Abdullah died while delaying the attackers long enough to save the lives of 140 children studying inside the mosque.But heroism should never be required to protect children at prayer.
The Five Criteria of Dangerous Speech
The pattern documented in the CSOH report aligns closely with what scholars call dangerous speech – speech that increases the likelihood of violence. According to the Dangerous Speech Project, five factors determine when rhetoric becomes truly perilous. First is the speaker: when the rhetoric comes from presidents, governors, cabinet secretaries, or nationally known media figures, its impact is exponentially greater. Second is the audience: Republican officials have been directing their messages toward followers already primed by years of fearmongering about Muslims, making them more susceptible to mobilization. Third is the message itself: portraying Muslims as invaders, demons, biologically suspect, or part of a “Sharia takeover” is precisely the kind of dehumanizing, threat-inflating language that historically precedes violence. Fourth is the social and historical context: the United States is in a period of intense polarization, demographic anxiety, and geopolitical tension—conditions that make audiences more receptive to calls for hostility. Finally, there is the means of dissemination: these messages are blasted across X, Fox News, congressional press conferences, and now even Cabinet-level platforms, reaching millions instantly. When all five criteria converge –as they do in today’s anti-Muslim campaign – the risk of real-world violence is not hypothetical. It is predictable.
And the numbers show exactly what this kind of rhetoric produces.
CAIR documented8,683 anti-Muslim civil rights complaints in 2025, the highest number in its 30-year history. In 2025 alone, there were 33 attacks on mosques.
This is not a coincidence. It is a climate.
And that climate is being shaped by political leaders who have discovered that fear of Muslims is a powerful mobilizing tool.
The CSOH report makes one thing clear: anti-Muslim hatred in America today is not organic. It is manufactured. It is coordinated. And it is politically useful.
But it is also deadly.
The San Diego massacre is not an isolated incident. It is a warning.
We have seen where this road leads. In India, the BJP’s dangerous‑speech ecosystem has already fueled lynchings of Muslims – a chilling example of what happens when political rhetoric turns entire communities into targets.
A Call for Moral Leadership
No house of worship in America should require armed security. No parent should fear sending their child to a religious school. No community should have to bury its members because teenagers absorbed a worldview that portrayed their neighbors as enemies.
The question now is whether our leaders will rise to the momentor whether they will continue to fan the flames.
For the sake of every community that gathers in prayer, for every child who deserves to grow up without fear, and for the future of a democracy that claims to value pluralism, the answer must be loud and clear.
Dr. Siddiqui is a peace and human rights activist. His forthcoming book – ‘Modi-fied’ India: the Transformation of a Nation – is scheduled for publication by Peter Lang in 2026. This essay draws on the author’s recent interview with Asia One News, Perspectiva.
