There are important lessons in the Muslim American experience since 9/11 that can help opposing voices survive Trump’s second term.
President Donald Trump’s outcries against government overreach and abusive tactics are numerous. But will he instruct his administration not to repeat these power abuses? Trump’s spokesman, Alex Pfeiffer, has asserted that FBI Director nominee Kash Patel will “end the weaponisation of law enforcement” and “target crime”. I find this unlikely. Patel’s statements suggest that, rather than ending such practices, the Trump administration will only increase persecution and attacks, both criminal and civil, on those perceived as political opposition.
For those wondering how an administration that favours headline-grabbing over justice and lawfulness might deploy weaponised law enforcement, baseless investigations, and political retaliation against those with differing viewpoints, there is much to be learned from the experiences of America’s Muslims.
For us, it is the same old story.
After 9/11, a broad range of Muslim organisations based in the US were targeted by law enforcement under the pretext of combating terrorism. This campaign involved high-profile investigations, asset seizures, and public accusations. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staff, in their 2009 report Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity, reported that “According to the 9/11 Commission staff, Treasury officials acknowledged that in the post-9/11 period, ‘some of the evidentiary foundations for the early designations were quite weak,’ and that the haste to designate charities after 9/11 ‘might [have] result[ed] in a high level of false designations’.” Many other groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation in the US, where I work, were similarly smeared. The consequences of these smears persist to this day.
Take CAIR, for example. If you are a Muslim in the US with political opinions, particularly on civil rights or issues affecting marginalised minorities, you have been subjected to government scrutiny. By 2011, then-Attorney General Eric Holder concluded that “the facts and the law” did not support any legal action against CAIR. The Bush administration had reached the same conclusion earlier. Undeterred by facts or law, however, internet warriors claimed the decision was due to political interference. US Attorney James Jacks, a key figure in one prosecution, later issued a statement addressing these allegations, saying, “The decision to indict or not indict a case is based upon an analysis of the evidence and the law. That’s what happened in this case.”
Still, the labels and rumours persist. Be prepared, as this is likely what you – alongside anyone publicly expressing a dissenting opinion or standing opposition to a government position – will face under Trump 2.0. Facts? Law? Not in this case. The same old story: Disinformation serving political agendas. It will make your allies hesitant to come to your defence. It will make donors nervous. It will obstruct your ability to advance charitable causes.
In the case of American Muslims, analysts have identified various motivations behind these attacks, many of which were unrelated to “public safety”.
Following 9/11, the US government was under intense pressure to prevent further attacks. Prosecuting or investigating Muslim organisations allowed officials to promote a narrative of actively combating domestic terrorism.
Anti-Muslim racism, rather than evidence of criminal activity, led to the perception that Muslim organisations were inherently suspicious. Recently, Elon Musk, billionaire X owner heading Trump’s newly minted Department of Government Efficiency, has used his social media platform to perpetuate a narrative of moustache-twisting Muslim villains.
Since 9/11, US government agencies have repeatedly been rewarded with increased funding and expanded authority for implementing counterterrorism programmes targeting Muslims, even when those programmes were based on stereotypes and unfounded science, and contributed nothing to public safety. The NYPD’s Muslim surveillance and mapping programmes resulted in zero prosecutions. The Obama Administration’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programmes produced dubious indicators, such as the idea that growing or shaving one’s beard could be a sign of malevolent intent. Meanwhile, concerns about the threat posed by ideological extremists such as white supremacists were downplayed.
In 2009, a report by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division warned of the rising threat from white supremacists and violent antigovernment groups. Congress torched it. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disavowed the report. The DHS analyst behind it left his job. His team was dissolved.
By 2011, journalist R Jeffrey Smith noted that “as many as 40 analysts” were focusing on al-Qaeda and its ideological allies. By contrast, in 2012, Wired journalist Spencer Ackerman reported that the DHS had only a single analyst tasked with tracking all forms of domestic non-Islamic extremism. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office reported that 62 of the 85 extremist terrorist incidents in the US post-9/11 were carried out by white nationalists.
Through this government overreach, America’s Muslims have learned a hard lesson: When those in power want to target you, there is little you can do to stop it. Ducking for cover or appeasing your oppressors are not viable strategies. However, there are steps you can take: Prioritise serving your community, develop resilience, refuse to change who you are to please those in power, enhance legal preparedness, and build your ability to communicate directly with the American people. It is a difficult road, but movements that champion justice will ultimately thank you.