When the Deal Replaces the Fight: Trump 2.0’s Islamist Turn

The quiet pivot that replaced naming the threat with negotiating it.

Most of you know where I come from and that the majority of my work isn’t second-hand research. Becoming a paid subscriber or making a one-time gift is how you help carry this mission into 2026.

When Donald Trump first ran for president, he said things nobody in modern American politics had dared to say out loud. In 2016, he told CNN, “I think Islam hates us,” and spent the campaign talking about an “Islam problem” that Western leaders refused to name. In office the first time, he signed a travel ban that singled out Muslim-majority countries and promised to “eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth.” Whether people liked him or loathed him, nobody could accuse him of being soft on Islam as an ideology.

Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 came with the expectation, especially among his base, that he would resume that posture. I tested that assumption against the record.

This is a record:

From “Islam Hates Us” to Ex-Jihadists on a White House Faith Board

One of the clearest markers of the shift came quietly in May 2025, when the White House announced the new Advisory Board of Lay Leaders under its Religious Liberty Commission. Among the appointees were Ismail Royer and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

Royer is not just a man who once flirted with bad ideas. He was part of the “Virginia jihad network,” a group of young men convicted in the early 2000s of training to fight with Islamist militants overseas. The Justice Department described the network as a conspiracy to support jihad against U.S. and Indian forces. Royer himself traveled to Pakistan, trained at a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp, and went to prison on terrorism-related charges.

In 2025, that same man is photographed and profiled as a member of a White House religious freedom advisory body, presented as a redeemed voice in interfaith dialogue just steps from the Oval Office.

Hamza Yusuf represents a different but equally important strand of Islamist influence. He is one of the most prominent Islamic scholars in the West, a cofounder of Zaytuna College, and a long-standing figure in efforts to mainstream Islamic orthodoxy within American religious and academic institutions. Yusuf has not been accused of terrorism, but his work has consistently defended core Islamic jurisprudence, opposed reformist interpretations, and framed Western scrutiny of Islam as bigotry rather than a response to doctrine. He has publicly criticized counterterror efforts, warned Muslims against cooperation with US law enforcement, and promoted the idea that Islam’s legal and political framework can coexist seamlessly within Western societies without fundamental conflict.

Together, the appointments of Royer and Yusuf illustrate the full arc of Trump 2.0’s pivot. One represents the rehabilitation of a former jihadist. The other represents the elevation of a sophisticated ideologue who has spent decades laundering orthodox Islamic doctrine into respectable Western language.

In Trump’s first term, the story was Sebastian Gorka, the travel ban, and a White House that kept Islamist figures at arm’s length. In Trump’s second term, the story now includes a convicted former jihadist and a leading proponent of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence advising the executive branch on matters of faith and freedom.

Immigration, Security, and the Afghan Case at the White House Fence

When Trump returned to office in January 2025, he reinstated a version of the travel restrictions he first introduced in 2017. The structure looked the same, but the list of countries was not. Several states that appeared in the earlier ban, including Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, and Syria, no longer appeared on the 2025 list.

The logic of the 2017 policy had been straightforward: any country that was a hub of Islamic jihad or part of Islamization and could not reliably verify identities, share security data, or prevent document fraud was subject to full suspension. None of the countries removed in 2025 experienced the kind of stability or intelligence cooperation that would justify lifting restrictions. Iraq remains saturated with ISIS remnants and Iranian-backed militias, Syria is fragmented and controlled by rival armed factions, Nigeria continues to face insurgencies from Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa, and Kyrgyzstan has a long record of passport fraud and transnational militant networks operating across its borders.

The underlying risks did not change. The list simply became shorter. And when the original standard remains the same while the exclusions shrink, that represents a measurable softening of the policy compared with the 2017 framework.

The second issue was not the ban itself but the system underneath it. Trump’s first-term framework imposed strict security reviews for asylum, both for Special Immigrant Visas and asylum claims. Those controls were not restored in 2025. The adjudication standards created under Biden’s Operation Allies Welcome remained in place, and the tens of thousands of cases inherited from that program continued to move forward without being reevaluated under Trump’s earlier criteria.

That is how Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s case unfolded. He entered the United States under Biden’s mass-parole program, but his final approval came during Trump’s second term, under a DHS process that had not retightened asylum vetting. On the night before Thanksgiving, he shot and killed a National Guard member and critically wounded another just outside the White House perimeter. The event forced an immediate freeze on visas for Afghan passport holders.

Since Thanksgiving, the administration has expanded the ban list again and frozen large categories of visa and asylum processing from additional countries, signaling a renewed willingness to use blunt entry controls when security failures become undeniable. That shift matters, but it does not resolve the core contradiction. The pressure still stops short of key U.S. partners such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, whose governments remain central exporters of Islamist ideology, funding, and influence networks. None of them face travel restrictions, visa freezes, or public accountability measures tied to Islamization or jihad infrastructure. The ban grows longer at the margins, yet the most powerful ideological and financial hubs of political Islam remain untouched, protected by alliance status rather than evaluated by the same risk standard applied elsewhere.

Syria’s New Jihadist President and the White House Embrace

If there is one file that reveals how far Trump’s second term has moved, it is Syria.

After the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, Ahmed al-Sharaa emerged as the interim president. He comes from Hay’at Tahrir al Sham, an Islamist militia that grew out of al Qaida’s Syrian branch and spent years on US terrorist lists. The United States had placed a $10 million bounty on him, which remained active until December 2024. His organization and its predecessor factions were responsible for attacks that killed American service members and US-aligned forces during the Syrian conflict. Yet Syria was removed from Trump’s reinstated travel ban list, and al-Sharaa was repositioned as a legitimate political figure.

The Trump administration made al-Sharaa a central partner in its regional strategy. Reports describe a US policy that seeks to stabilize Syria by backing its government and even exploring a future non-aggression pact between Syria and Israel, with American envoys lobbying regional actors to accept it as the new face of Damascus.

That partnership has not remained diplomatic. US forces have operated alongside Syrian partner forces in what officials describe as ongoing counter-ISIS operations. On December 13, 2025, that mission produced American blood. Two US soldiers were killed, three more US service members were injured, and one civilian US interpreter was killed in an ambush near Palmyra that officials described as a likely ISIS attack. The attacker was killed during the engagement by partner forces.

The friction has not been with al-Sharaa. It has been with Israel. U.S. officials have expressed concern that Israeli strikes on Syrian targets risk “destabilizing” a transition that Washington wants to succeed.

During Trump 1.0, a leader with an al-Qaida-linked résumé, a U.S. bounty on his head, and a record tied to American deaths would have been a non-starter. In 2025, he is welcomed to the White House and defended against a U.S. ally.

For Islamization, this is not a marginal footnote. It is the normalization of a jihad commander as a legitimate head of state, with Washington’s blessing, while allowing Syrian jihadists an open portal through diplomatic access into the United States.

The Gaza Deal: Negotiating a Ceasefire With Hamas Through Qatar

Trump’s Gaza peace plan is another key piece of the puzzle. On September 29, 2025, he stood beside Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House and unveiled what became known as the “Gaza 20 points peace plan,” a multi-phase framework intended to end two years of war between Israel and Hamas. The plan mandated an immediate ceasefire and an asymmetrical exchange, involving the return of 48 Israeli hostages, both living and deceased, in exchange for the release of over two thousand Palestinian prisoners, including 250 convicted of terrorism and jihad-related offenses. And the deployment of an International Stabilization Force tasked with overseeing demilitarization and post-conflict security arrangements in Gaza.

By October, Trump announced that Israel and Hamas had agreed to the first phase of the deal. Hostages would be released, Israeli forces would pull back to agreed positions, and active combat would pause under American guarantees. From the standpoint of civilians on both sides, the ceasefire brought temporary relief.

From the standpoint of doctrine and precedent, something more consequential occurred. Hamas, a United States-designated terrorist organization whose charter explicitly calls for jihad and the destruction of Israel, became a direct negotiating party in a United States-brokered agreement carrying the imprimatur of the Trump White House.

The machinery behind that deal ran through Qatar. The negotiations relied on Doha as the primary intermediary, with Trump’s envoys working through senior Qatari officials who maintain long-standing political and financial ties to Hamas leadership.

Talks included Hamas figures based in Qatar, with Washington providing assurances that Israel would not resume large-scale military operations if hostages were released and the ceasefire framework held. The United States did not remove Hamas from the terror list, but it structured a diplomatic process in which Hamas’s compliance, credibility, and internal command authority were treated as indispensable to regional stability.

Since December, the ceasefire has shown signs of fragility. Implementation disputes, release delays, and renewed threats have underscored the framework's central risk. Enforcement depends not on dismantling Hamas’s governing or military capacity, but on its willingness to honor terms under Qatari supervision. The deal pauses war without resolving the ideological and organizational infrastructure that produced it.

Compared to Trump’s first term, when UNRWA funding was cut, and the Palestinian Authority was sidelined rather than empowered, this represents a fundamental shift.

Trump 2.0 accepts that progress in Gaza runs through Islamist power brokers and treats Qatar not as a problematic sponsor of Hamas, but as a necessary guarantor of order. The result is an architecture that manages jihadist actors rather than marginalizing them, and that embeds Islamist movements more deeply into the region’s diplomatic future rather than confronting them as an ideological threat.

Political Islam at Home: Mamdani’s Rise and Federal Silence

While the White House was working with Islamist actors abroad, political Islam at home had a banner year. In June 2025, New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist Muslim and outspoken supporter of the Palestinian cause, defeated Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor. He went on to win the general election in November, becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor.

Mamdani’s victory was celebrated openly by the Democratic Socialists of America as a breakthrough for their movement, which has repeatedly aligned itself with pro-Hamas activism and boycott campaigns. For Jewish communities in New York, his rise intensified debates over security, antisemitism, and the city’s future relationship with Israel.

The Trump White House was not silent. President Donald Trump criticized Mamdani publicly and repeatedly, but the attacks were narrowly framed. Trump went after Mamdani as a socialist, mocked his economic positions, and warned about left-wing governance in New York City. What he did not do was confront the Islamist dimension of Mamdani’s politics. The criticism never touched Mamdani’s religious ideology, his alliances, or the role of political Islam within the coalition that brought him to power.

That distinction became impossible to ignore when Mamdani was invited to the White House. During a publicized meeting in the Oval Office, Mamdani openly criticized Trump, repeated accusations against Israel, and referred to the Jewish state as genocidal, doing so in front of the president who had extended the invitation.

Trump responded with praise for Mamdani’s political rise and spoke favorably about engaging with him as a mayor, even as Mamdani continued to use language aligned with the most aggressive anti-Israel narratives. The exchange underscored the asymmetry. Socialism was fair game for confrontation. Islamist rhetoric was not.

The same pattern held beyond New York. Campus activism tied to Islamist-aligned causes continued through 2025, including pro-Hamas encampments, intimidation campaigns, and aggressive rhetoric targeting Jewish students. These incidents were left mainly to local administrators.

Inside the same country where Trump once made Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib household names through direct confrontation, the new generation of Islamist-friendly politicians encountered a different standard. They were challenged on economics, praised for access, and integrated into elite political spaces, while the ideological roots of their movements remained largely untouched.

Law Enforcement, Jihad Cases, and How They Are Framed

The Afghan shooting near the White House gate was the most visible Islamic-linked case of 2025, but it was not the only one. Federal and local agencies dealt with additional arrests involving individuals tied to ISIS propaganda, pro-Hamas threats, and plots against synagogues and Jewish centers. Many of these cases were processed as standard criminal matters under weapons, threat, or conspiracy statutes, with official statements that avoided sustained discussion of ideology. That pattern predates Trump’s return to the office and has continued under his second term.

What has changed is the surrounding landscape. In cities such as Dearborn Heights, local government moved further into cultural accommodation. In 2025, the city issued its first bilingual municipal batch in history in Arabic, a symbolic yet telling marker of how Islamic identity and language are being normalized inside American civic institutions. That shift occurred without any corresponding federal effort to address the ideological framework that often accompanies political Islam, or to draw lines between religious freedom and doctrinal enforcement.

At the federal level, the Trump administration has not reversed the post-Obama and Biden era retreat from naming Islamic doctrine in law enforcement training. The Department of Justice has not restored the use of terms such as jihad, jihadist, or Islamic terrorism in official training materials or threat assessments.

The FBI has not publicly returned to candid instruction on Islamic ideology, Sharia-based motivation, or the doctrinal drivers behind jihadist violence. Instead, the dominant framing remains individualized and clinical. Officials emphasize mental health, generic extremism, or abstract hate, rather than the legal and theological system that binds these incidents together across cases and jurisdictions.

That continuity matters because Trump was re-elected on the expectation that he would break it. In his first campaign and first term, he openly criticized law enforcement and intelligence agencies for refusing to name the enemy. In his second term, the enforcement machinery has continued to operate under the same linguistic and analytical constraints as before. Arrests happen. Prosecutions proceed. But the ideological component of jihad is still treated as too sensitive to teach, too controversial to name, and too dangerous to address directly.

The result is a widening gap. Islamic identity and accommodation advance openly at the local level, while federal law enforcement remains locked in a posture of semantic avoidance.

Tone and Narrative: From Naming Islam to Managing It

The difference between Trump’s campaign language in 2015 and 2016 and his presidential language in 2025 is not subtle. In his first run, he spoke openly about Islam as a civilizational problem, insisted on using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” and attacked political leaders for sanitizing the threat. Naming the ideology was part of the message. Refusing to name it was framed as weakness.

In 2025, the vocabulary has changed. Trump’s speeches at the United Nations and across the Middle East emphasize peace, stability, and shared security. His partners now include Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and a post-Assad Syria led by a jihad commander. The language is managerial rather than confrontational. Islam is no longer described as a system that produces conflict, but as a world that must be balanced, negotiated with, and brought into functional arrangements.

Trump still speaks forcefully about border security and crime. He still uses harsh language when discussing migration and violence. But the target has shifted. The problem is no longer Islam as an ideological project with legal and theological demands. It is an abstract pool of bad actors from bad places, detached from doctrine, structure, or religious law. Meanwhile, specific Islamic regimes and Islamist actors are praised as partners, mediators, or guarantors of order.

The narrative shift is straightforward. Trump 1.0 cast himself as the barrier between Western civilization and political Islam. Trump 2.0 presents himself as the dealmaker who can integrate that same Islamic world into managed outcomes. The threat is no longer confronted. It is administered.

So Let’s Recap: An F Grade and a Record of Empowerment

Today, the question is not what anyone hoped would happen in 2025. The question is what actually happened, and what it produced.

By any serious standard, this year earns an F, not because nothing was done, but because what was done consistently empowered the very forces Trump once vowed to confront.

When the White House places a convicted former jihadist and a leading proponent of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence on a religious liberty advisory board, the result is institutional legitimacy for jihad-adherent ideology.

When a former Islamist militia leader is backed as Syria’s president and defended diplomatically, even as American forces take casualties under that arrangement, the result is the normalization of jihadist governance.

When a Gaza deal is branded around negotiations with Hamas through Qatar, the result is not isolation of a terrorist organization, but its elevation as a necessary political actor.

When Zohran Mamdani is praised for access, hosted at the White House, and allowed to accuse Israel of genocide in the Oval Office without ideological challenge, the result is selective confrontation that stops short of Islam.

When law enforcement continues to avoid words like jihad, jihadist, and Islamic terrorism, the result is a security apparatus trained to manage violence without naming its source.

When bans are applied selectively to avoid confronting favored partners, they function as a show of action rather than a solution, leaving the core drivers of Islamization untouched.

Put simply, Trump 1.0 recognized Islamization as a threat and attempted to stop it. Trump 2.0 avoids naming the threat, avoids confronting its sources, and governs as if the danger can be managed by preference.

If the question is whether 2025 slowed the long march of civilization jihad, the answer is no. The year did not hold the line. It moved it, bringing Islamic regimes, Islamist politicians, and even former combatants closer to the center of American legitimacy and power than at any point during Trump’s first term.