WHY DID CONGRESS START A SHARIA-FREE CAUCUS?

On December 18, 2025, Representatives Keith Self and Chip Roy of Texas launched the Sharia-Free America Caucus in the House of Representatives.

The caucus was created to address the growing political and legal influence of Sharia in the United States and to prevent any Sharia-based legal system from conflicting with or displacing the U.S. Constitution and constitutional rights.

Its stated focus includes immigration and national security concerns involving individuals or organizations that may seek to establish a political order incompatible with the American constitutional system, as well as support for legislation such as the proposed No Sharia Act and related measures involving foreign influence and terrorism.

The caucus’s founders explicitly frame the issue as a conflict between Sharia, when understood as a governing or political-legal system, and the U.S. Constitution and Western values. They have also pointed to developments in Europe as a warning.

By February 2026, the caucus had grown to 33 House members from 18 states.

The stated purpose of the caucus is not to oppose Muslims practicing their religion privately. Its founders specifically state they oppose Sharia when it functions as a political and legal system that could conflict with, compete with, or seek to displace the American constitutional order.

The caucus was not formed in response to one isolated event. Its founders and members have pointed to a series of developments - both in the United States and abroad - that demonstrate why the political, legal, immigration, assimilation, and national-security implications of Sharia deserve congressional attention.

Five specific examples they cited:

1. The December 14, 2025 Bondi Beach terrorist attack in Australia.
The caucus launched just four days later, on December 18, 2025. Its official launch announcement specifically cited the attack, in which 15 victims were killed at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration. Australian authorities said the attack was inspired by Islamic State ideology. Senator Tommy Tuberville explicitly invoked the attack in the caucus launch announcement as a warning about Islamist extremism. 

2. Concern over developments such as EPIC City in North Texas.
Although EPIC City was not specifically named in the December 18 launch announcement, it soon became one of the prominent American examples cited by caucus members. Rep. Scott Perry later said, “From Dearborn to ‘EPIC City,’”when explaining why he supported the caucus, and Rep. Brandon Gill specifically cited constituent concerns about the East Plano Islamic Community and associated development. 

3. Developments in Europe - particularly France and England.
Keith Self said at the caucus launch that the founders believed the United States should learn from what they viewed as failures of assimilation and growing Islamist influence in European countries. Chip Roy likewise called Europe a “wake-up call.” This was a central part of their stated rationale, although they did not identify one particular European incident in the launch announcement. 

4. Immigration and terrorism concerns.
Roy’s launch statement alleged that some people entering as refugees could have connections to terrorist organizations and argued that the immigration system needed to address ideological commitments he considered incompatible with the Constitution. The caucus was therefore connected from the beginning to Roy’s proposed Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act and PAUSE Act. 

5. Iranian clerics issuing Sharia-based fatwas against American and Israeli leaders.
The caucus’s launch materials specifically listed legislation from Keith Self addressing Iranian clerics accused of issuing multimillion-dollar fatwas calling for the deaths of President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and others. The founders presented this as another example of the political and violent application of religious law that concerned them. 

The creation of the Sharia-Free America Caucus shows that concerns about the political, legal, immigration, and national security implications of Sharia are not confined to LaSalle County. Defend LaSalle’s concerns about the proposed Sheridan development are therefore not baseless or rooted in opposition to private religious worship. They arise from the project’s own public marketing, its faith-centered structure, statements about Islamic use of the property, fractional investment promotion, and unanswered questions about ownership, financing, zoning, assimilation, and local accountability. These issues deserve serious, lawful review - not dismissal - because protecting religious liberty also requires protecting the constitutional order that guarantees it.