US elections: Republicans are betting on Islamophobia to win the midterms

The phrase means Republicans are making anti-Muslim fear a central campaign strategy. The article links this choice to low approval ratings, rising living costs, and the midterms’ role as a judgment on the president and his party. Islamophobia becomes a way to mobilize supporters and redirect anger toward Muslim Americans.

The strategy operates through repeated public attacks and government action. Nearly 100 Republican members of Congress posted negatively about Islam or Muslims, and several called for deportations. The article also describes a congressional caucus, proposed legislation, hearings, immigration restrictions, and school policies portraying Islam as violent.

This is more than isolated campaign insult. The article says Republican officials are turning prejudice into an organized platform, with 1,111 social media posts, eight bills, and a 62-member caucus identified by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate. That could normalize discrimination and influence elections, institutions, and public policy.

Islamophobia is prejudice, hostility, or fear directed at Muslims or Islam. In this article, it is not merely private suspicion. It is described as public rhetoric that dehumanizes Muslim Americans and treats roughly 1 percent of the US population as a national threat.

The examples are explicit. Randy Fine chose dogs over Muslims, Andy Ogles said Muslims do not belong in American society, and Bo French said he wanted every Muslim gone. Nancy Mace called Muslim public officials a national-security threat. Trump referred to Abdul El-Sayed as “Mohammed” and called him a radical jihadist.

The article also describes institutional expression. Officials called for deportations, restricted Muslim immigration, formed a Sharia-focused caucus, and supported measures affecting Islamic schools. Texas excluded Islamic private schools from a voucher programme and approved curriculum portraying Islam as violent. These actions can turn prejudice into unequal treatment.

The article describes a campaign operating across Congress, social media, legislation, hearings, immigration policy, state government, and schools. The Washington Post counted nearly 100 Republican members of Congress posting about Islam or Muslims since early 2025, almost always negatively. Several also called for Muslims to be deported.

The Center for the Study of Organized Hate identified 1,111 social media posts, eight bills, and a 62-member congressional caucus between February 2025 and March 2026. The House is also described as having a Sharia-Free America Caucus with 68 members. These figures show coordination and institutional reach, not just individual comments.

The article says Muslims represent 1 percent of the US population. Despite being a small minority, they are portrayed by Republican officials as a major national threat. The article connects that framing to a 96 percent fall in legal immigration from Muslim-majority countries since December 2024 and to policies in Texas.

When hostile rhetoric becomes government policy, it can affect people’s ability to enter the country, attend schools, participate in public life, or be treated equally by officials. It can also give prejudice an official appearance, making discrimination seem normal or justified. The article presents this shift as a move from words to policy.

Texas provides the clearest examples. Governor Greg Abbott designated Cair, a Muslim civil-rights organization, a terrorist organization. The state excluded Islamic private schools from its voucher programme. Its Republican-majority education board also approved curriculum portraying Islam as violent and requiring students to connect 9/11 with “radical Islam.”

These measures can damage institutions and public understanding while discouraging Muslim civic participation. They may also teach future voters inaccurate claims about religion and terrorism. The article suggests the consequences extend beyond one election: organized rhetoric can become durable law, administrative practice, and classroom knowledge.

The article describes sharia as an Islamic ethical code and moral compass covering many parts of life. It can guide practices such as prayer and greeting neighbours. It is broader than a set of laws, and the article says Muslims cannot impose it on an unwilling person or use it to replace the US Constitution.

Republican officials cited in the article use “sharia” differently. They present it as a hidden political and security threat requiring hearings, legislation, and a Sharia-Free America Caucus. The article calls this portrayal a “phantom problem,” because it treats ordinary religious ethics as an organized plan to take over government.

That difference matters because a misunderstood religious concept becomes a tool for political fear. The article says the campaign has produced a Sharia-Free America Act and congressional hearings featuring anti-Muslim voices. It argues that these institutions give the imagined threat official legitimacy.

Midterm elections occur halfway through a US president’s four-year term. Voters choose members of Congress and, in many states, governors and other officials. The elections do not choose the president, but they can change which party controls Congress and therefore affect the president’s legislative agenda.

They are treated as a judgment because voters are responding to the national political environment while the president is in office. Approval ratings, economic conditions, major policies, scandals, and public frustrations can all shape that response. The article specifically points to low approval ratings and anger over the cost of living.

A strong result for the president’s party can suggest support for its direction; losses can signal dissatisfaction or mobilize opposition. That is why the article presents Republicans’ anti-Muslim messaging as an electoral bet. They are trying to turn fear and resentment into votes before the midterms.

The article does not explain these constitutional doctrines; the following reflects established US constitutional law. Equal protection generally requires government to treat people equally and bars discriminatory classifications without sufficient legal justification. Religious freedom protects belief and religious practice, while limiting government efforts to establish or target a religion.

Free-expression protections give politicians and citizens broad room to criticize religions and express even hateful political views. But speech rights do not automatically shield government policies from constitutional review. Official actions, funding decisions, immigration rules, and school curricula may be challenged if they discriminate, burden religious exercise, or rely on unlawful classifications.

These principles create an important distinction. Officials may have protection for their words as campaign speakers, while government institutions remain bound by constitutional limits. The article’s examples therefore raise legal questions about equal treatment, religious neutrality, education policy, and whether rhetoric has influenced state action.