The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, said today that a recent Rasmussen Reports survey “message-testing” anti-Muslim talking points is the latest sign of a deliberate effort to stoke anti-Muslim hysteria nationwide for political gain.
On January 15, 2026, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a three-question message-testing measure. CAIR asserts the survey used selectively framed questions to elicit a predetermined conclusion that Muslims are inherently threatening.
One question falsely declared that Muslims were establishing sharia law in America and then asked respondents for their reaction: “Some Muslims in the United States want to form separate communities governed by Islamic Sharia law. Do you support or oppose Muslims establishing their own communities in the United States?”
CAIR notes that such dehumanizing messaging can produce hateful rhetoric that targets American Muslims for political gain and harmful policies. In 2015, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump cited an already debunked poll as justification for what became his Muslim Ban.
SEE: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll
SEE ALSO: Man arrested after Ilhan Omar attacked during town hall in Minneapolis
“The apparent purpose of this dehumanizing message-testing is to find red meat for politicians who prefer to sow fear rather than offer solutions to win public favor. If we asked questions as selectively framed as those in this Rasmussen Reports survey, we would both expect to get our predetermined results and expect to be criticized for being biased,” said CAIR Research and Advocacy Director Corey Saylor. “Anti-Muslim hysteria is out of control and part of a deliberate, coordinated effort to both attack Muslims for political gain and silence American Muslims.”
CAIR staff noted that the poll is similar to a poll of Western nations commissioned by the Israeli Foreign Ministry last year which concluded that the best way for Israel to reverse negative views of the country was to distract Western audiences with fear of radical Muslims.
BACKGROUNDER:
In an analysis, Politico found that extreme anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric in early 2026 represents “an escalation of rhetoric the [Republican] party has long used to rally its voters.” Texas GOP consultant Vinny Minchillo told Politico, “The Muslim community is the boogeyman for this cycle. One hundred percent this message works — there’s no question about it. This has been polled up one side and down the other, and with Texas Republican primary voters, it works.”
SEE: Republicans go all-in on ‘Sharia law’ attacks ahead of Texas primary
Saylor noted he is not a public opinion and survey research design expert. Instead, he pointed to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), Standards Best Practices document. AAPOR describes itself as, “the leading association of public opinion and survey research professionals.”
SEE: AAPOR Standards Best Practices
According to a March 2022 version of that document accessed through AAPOR’s website, “Surveys should not be used to produce predetermined results, campaigning, fundraising, or selling.” (AAPOR Standards Best Practices, pg. 2). Later, the document’s authors advise professionals to, “Keep questions free of bias by avoiding language that pushes respondents to respond in a certain way or that presents only one side of an issue. (AAPOR Standards Best Practices, pg. 4)
Rasmussen Reports’ write-up of the message test centers only one side of an issue: an unproven allegation by “opponents” of a Muslim-led development project in Texas. It does not note that multiple investigations, including one by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, have not substantiated the opponent’s allegations. It also does not present project supporters’ side of the issue.
SEE: Most voters concerned about radical Islam
SEE ALSO: DOJ ends investigation into Muslim-centered EPIC City project in North Texas
SEE ALSO: State agency settles Fair Housing probe into Muslim-centric EPIC City
The first question CAIR points to as problematic is, “How concerned are you about the influence of radical Islam in the United States?”
CAIR believes this is a leading question that encourages negative answers. There is no neutrality in it.
CAIR also argues the question’s framing is the equivalent of asking, “How concerned are you about recent developments in particle physics?” Respondents will give an answer, but what useful insight are researchers capturing?
Substantive research indicates that most Americans do not know a Muslim and most of their knowledge of Islam and Muslims comes from overwhelmingly negative media coverage of the community. Answering this question in a way that produces any insight requires the respondent to demonstrate that they have enough exposure to Islam and Muslims to form a view.
Without that insight researchers risk capturing media exposure, the respondent’s performative desire to give some form of response, or the outcome of decades of efforts to paint Islamic identity as an inherent threat.
Rasmussen Reports’ postings about the message test do not indicate that the organization made any effort to offer respondents baseline questions to establish their understanding of Islam, or to differentiate between religious extremism and the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
Searches of Rasmussen’s website for “radical” and other major world faiths returned no results. Since all ideologies have their extremists, CAIR questions why Rasmussen Reports appears to frame Islam and Muslims as uniquely problematic.
The second question CAIR identifies as problematic is, “Some Muslims in the United States want to form separate communities governed by Islamic Sharia law. Do you support or oppose Muslims establishing their own communities in the United States?”
Echoing antisemitic stereotypes such as those around the imaginary Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the false notion that Muslims seek to subvert Western nations and implement new law is common in anti-Muslim extremist circles.
CAIR leaders: Abbott’s attacks on Muslims draw on an old religious bigotry playbook
As noted above, Rasmussen Reports’ release cites unproven allegations from Texas, which seems to prompt this question, in its release. Why not cite the supporters’ assertions that they find living near a place of worship from their faith-tradition to be a good thing?
There is no evidence that Rasmussen has message tested similar Christian-led community development projects such as Veritas Splendor, a proposed community for Tyler, Texas.
Muslims have established non-binding mediation and arbitration services for issues like divorce, business disputes and other civil matters that can then be referred to regular courts for adjudication. This is non-controversial and similar to other American faith traditions. The Jerusalem Post named two similar services in its coverage of Muslims in Texas, “The Institute for Christian Conciliation, which says online it resolves disputes in a ‘biblical manner,’” and “The Beth Din of America, which describes itself as a rabbinical court ‘firmly anchored in the principles of halacha (Jewish law).'” Even though similar Christian and Jewish institutions exist, Rasmussen Reports appears to adopt a stance that favors portraying Muslims uniquely dangerous or suspicious.
END
CONTACT: CAIR National Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell, 404-285-9530, e-Mitchell@cair.com; CAIR Government Affairs Director Robert McCaw, 202-742-6448, rmccaw@cair.com; CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, ihooper@cair.com; CAIR National Communications Manager Ismail Allison, 202-770-6280, iallison@cair.com