Why Do Americans Distrust Muslims? What 25 Years of Research Shows

Americans' negative perceptions of Muslims cannot be explained simply by a lack of personal contact. Knowing a Muslim is generally associated with more favorable views, but studies also show that media portrayals can influence prejudice, political identity is strongly associated with beliefs about Islam, and substantial money has been spent on campaigns invoking Muslim identity and terrorism. The evidence supports several contributing mechanisms, not one all-purpose explanation.

The numbers show why a closer look is necessary. In 2022, 50% of U.S. adults said they personally knew a Muslim, according to Pew Research Center's survey of religious attitudes. In January 2026, 51% said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence, according to Pew's 25-year review of Muslim American experiences.

Those findings come from different samples, different questions, and different years. They do not mean that half the people who know Muslims personally consider them violent. The more revealing question is why familiarity, beliefs about a religion, attitudes toward a population, and political messaging can produce such different pictures of the same country.

What Americans Actually Believe About Muslims

Before asking why Americans distrust Muslims, we need to establish what the surveys actually measure. Believing something negative about Islam as a religion is not identical to disliking Muslim people or supporting discrimination against them.

Sources: Pew Research Center, March 2023 and Pew Research Center, September 2026. Figures answer different questions and should not be treated as a single trend.

The distinction is substantial. In the 2022 survey, 22% expressed an unfavorable view of Muslims, while a much larger group, 59%, gave a neutral response or said they did not know enough to rate them. It would be misleading to describe the entire neutral or uncertain group as hostile.

The 2026 findings are still troubling. Saying that Muslim Americans are inherently less patriotic is a generalization about people, not a narrow theological disagreement. And believing that Islam encourages violence more than other religions can shape how a person interprets news about Muslim individuals, even though it does not tell us whether that respondent would mistreat a Muslim neighbor.

The central research problem is not to manufacture one national "Islamophobia percentage." It is to understand which negative beliefs exist, how they differ, and what evidence can explain them.

How Many Americans Have Actually Met a Muslim?

A claim often repeated online is that roughly two-thirds of Americans have never met a Muslim. The available survey series does not establish that figure.

Pew usually asks whether respondents personally know someone who is Muslim, not whether they have ever met one. These are different thresholds. A person may meet a Muslim coworker, cashier, classmate, or neighbor without ever learning that person's religion. Another may know a Muslim well through a long-distance relationship.

Here is what Pew's published acquaintance estimates actually show:

Sources: Pew's 2001-2009 series, 2014 religious-acquaintance survey, 2016 survey and topline, and 2022 survey. The 2016 question was asked of non-Muslim respondents; survey design and sample definitions vary, so these are not points in a perfectly comparable time series.

In other words, the 2022 evidence points to approximately half of Americans personally knowing a Muslim, not two-thirds of Americans having never encountered one. The viral formulation goes beyond what that research measures.

There are also understandable reasons contact is uneven. The 2009 Pew survey found that 66% of college graduates knew a Muslim, compared with 29% of adults who had not attended college. Those differences may reflect workplace, geographic, and social-network opportunities, among other factors. They are not proof that education itself causes religious tolerance.

The Muslim population has grown. Pew estimated about 5.5 million Muslims of all ages in the United States in 2026, compared with approximately 2.4 million in 2007. But living in a country with more Muslims is not the same thing as developing a relationship with one.

Does Personally Knowing a Muslim Reduce Prejudice?

The evidence generally points toward more favorable attitudes among people who know Muslims, and some intervention studies find that meaningful interaction can improve attitudes. But the type and quality of contact matter, and correlation is not causation.

What opinion surveys can tell us

In Pew's 2022 survey, non-Muslims who personally knew a Muslim were somewhat more likely to rate Muslims favorably (24%) than unfavorably (21%). Across several religious groups, acquaintance was generally linked to a greater willingness to express an opinion and often a more positive one.

The association also extends to religious knowledge. In Pew's 2019 religious-knowledge study, 76% of respondents who knew a Muslim correctly identified Ramadan as an Islamic holy month, compared with 46% among those who did not know a Muslim. That is a 30-percentage-point difference.

But the survey does not tell us what came first. People who are curious about other religions may be more likely both to learn about Islam and to make Muslim friends. Community, education, and political preferences may influence both outcomes.

What contact experiments add

A major 2006 meta-analysis by Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp combined 713 independent samples from 515 studies and found that intergroup contact typically reduced prejudice. The research covered many groups, not just Muslims, and found that favorable contact conditions generally strengthened the relationship.

A more directly relevant 2025 study in Communications Psychology examined a semester-long program that connected non-Muslim American students with Muslim students from the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. Across two field quasi-experiments totaling 2,886 participants, those who joined the facilitated virtual exchanges showed improved attitudes and reductions in measures of dehumanization.

That is meaningful evidence, but it has limits. Participants were not randomly assigned in a conventional randomized trial, and the students abroad were not a sample of Muslim American neighbors. The study demonstrates the promise of structured interaction under particular conditions; it does not prove that meeting any Muslim once will change someone's beliefs.

The distinction is important because "knowing a Muslim" can describe anything from having one distant acquaintance to sharing years of trust, cooperation, and friendship. Treating every form of contact as equivalent hides the mechanism researchers are trying to understand.

What Changed After 9/11? The Political Divide Is Larger Than the National Trend

One of the most consequential findings in Pew's September 2026 report is not simply that more Americans associate Islam with violence than they did shortly after September 11, 2001. It is the extraordinary divergence between political groups.

Pew repeatedly asked whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence:

Source: Pew Research Center's published historical series. The partisan gap is calculated by subtracting the Democratic percentage from the Republican percentage. Surveys through 2015 used telephone methods; 2016 onward used Pew's American Trends Panel. The August 2021 question, not shown here, had different wording.

From March 2002 to January 2026, the national percentage increased by 26 percentage points, while the partisan gap widened by 38 percentage points, from 9 to 47.

The national number did not increase steadily. It reached 52% in 2016, fell in later polls, and returned to 51% in 2026. The change in survey mode also means the whole historical difference should not be read as a precisely measured change in the same population under identical conditions.

Nevertheless, the partisan contrast is unmistakable within the 2026 survey: 76% of Republicans and Republican leaners expressed this belief, compared with 29% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Political affiliation is therefore one of the strongest visible dividing lines in this particular attitude. That does not prove party leaders or news outlets created it. People select parties and media partly because of preexisting beliefs, and religious doctrine, social networks, and personal experience can shape all three.

But a theory that explains anti-Muslim sentiment only through lack of acquaintances must also explain why political affiliation predicts such different answers to the same question.

Does Negative News Coverage Actually Change People's Views?

This is where the evidence moves beyond survey correlations.

Political scientist Nazita Lajevardi examined cable-news coverage of Muslims and Muslim Americans and conducted survey experiments for a 2021 study in The Journal of Politics. The study found that news portrayals of Muslims were comparatively negative. In its experiments, negative portrayals increased hostility toward Muslim Americans and support for stringent policies targeting them. Positive portrayals had comparatively weaker effects.

An experiment that varies the content participants see can test whether that content causes a measurable change under study conditions. It is stronger evidence for media effects than merely observing that certain television audiences hold particular political opinions.

It still cannot tell us how much of today's national prejudice came from cable news, social media, political advertisements, entertainment, or other sources. Nor does it mean that any negative story about an individual Muslim is automatically biased.

The decisive difference is whether reporting evaluates a particular person, organization, or act on its evidence, or asks audiences to generalize suspicion to Muslims as a group.

Terrorism, state violence, and religious extremism are legitimate subjects for reporting and criticism. Collective guilt is not evidence-based analysis. A crime committed by one adherent of a religion cannot establish what millions of other adherents believe or deserve.

Political rhetoric can also shape willingness to make contact

A separate 2025 study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology tested how positive and negative political rhetoric about Muslims affected non-Muslim participants' expectations of future contact.

Positive rhetoric improved perceptions of contact and, in the larger experiment, increased intentions to interact with Muslims. Negative rhetoric did not produce an equivalent universal effect: the researchers found some negative effects among participants with particular preexisting social attitudes. Intergroup trust helped explain parts of the relationship.

That qualification matters. The experiment does not support the claim that every hostile message makes every listener avoid Muslims. It does support a narrower, important conclusion: political language can influence whether people expect contact with Muslims to be positive or threatening.

Taken together, the contact and messaging research suggests a possible feedback loop. Personal interaction can challenge stereotypes, while messages that encourage distrust can affect whether people seek such interaction. The existence and exact size of that loop in the U.S. population have not been established by these studies.

Who Pays for Anti-Muslim Messaging in America?

There is a documented financing story here. There is also a frequent accounting mistake: treating grants to organizations, spending on advertisements, and the persuasive effects of that spending as if they were the same thing.

They are not.

Historical nonprofit funding

In its 2022 report Islamophobia in the Mainstream, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported that 35 of the 50 charitable institutions and foundations it reviewed provided a combined $105,865,763 between 2017 and 2019 to 26 organizations that CAIR classified as part of an anti-Muslim network.

That is a specific, traceable historical allegation supported by the report's review of grantmaking records. CAIR is a Muslim civil-rights advocacy organization, however, and the classification of every recipient as an anti-Muslim organization is its analytical judgment, not an independent government finding.

More importantly, a grant to an organization is not proof that the entire grant was used for anti-Muslim advertisements or misinformation. Organizations can carry out many activities, and donor-advised funds may obscure the identity of the original contributors. A defensible money-trail investigation would identify donors, recipients, activities, dates, and where possible the use of particular funds.

The $105.9 million figure is also historical. It is not an estimate of annual spending in 2026.

The 2026 Michigan Senate race

A contemporary example comes from the campaign against Abdul El-Sayed, who defeated Republican Mike Rogers on November 3, 2026, to become the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate.

Using AdImpact data, The Washington Post reported on November 6 that Republican advertisers spent approximately $46 million on attacks that invoked terrorism or 9/11 or referenced Islam or Muslim groups. That represented more than one-third of Republican ad spending in the race. The Senate Leadership Fund accounted for more than $16 million of that total.

Those are estimates of advertising in defined categories, not proof that every dollar purchased a false statement. The $16 million is included within the $46 million, not an additional amount to add to it. Nor can the historic CAIR grants be combined with the 2026 advertising total into a meaningful national figure.

El-Sayed won despite those attacks. His victory establishes that the advertising did not stop him from winning, not that it necessarily backfired or increased his vote share. Determining its electoral effect would require credible evidence about how voters responded compared with what would have happened without those messages.

The publicly supported conclusion is strong enough without speculation: anti-Muslim associations have been financed and deployed in major American political campaigns, but the records do not tell us how much of today's national sentiment those campaigns caused.

The Consequences Are Measured in More Than Opinions

Public beliefs matter because they can shape behavior, policy preferences, and everyday treatment.

In Pew's May 2026 survey, 59% of Muslim Americans said Muslims face a lot of discrimination, and 59% said Muslims are portrayed unfairly in television and movies. Those are perceptions reported by Muslim respondents, not independently verified counts of every incident.

In the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding's 2025 American Muslim Poll, 63% of Muslim respondents said they had experienced religious discrimination in the past year. The same report found that 47% of surveyed Muslim families with school-aged children reported that a child had been bullied because of religion during that period.

The federal hate-crime data provide another, narrower measure. According to FBI figures compiled by Pew, participating law-enforcement agencies reported 205 anti-Islamic incidents in 2025, compared with 28 in 2000 and 481 in 2001, when incidents spiked after the 9/11 attacks. Reporting practices and agency participation have changed, so these totals are not a complete census or a perfectly comparable trend.

A separate measure from ISPU is also worth understanding: its Islamophobia Index, based on agreement with five negative stereotypes about Muslim Americans, increased from 25 in 2022 to 33 in 2025 among the general public. This is an eight-point change on a 0-100 composite scale, not a finding that eight additional percentage points of Americans became prejudiced. ISPU corrected several subgroup figures in May 2026; the general-public numbers cited here were not among those corrections.

These indicators measure different things. Taken together, they show that negative perceptions are not just an argument about language: many Muslim Americans report concrete experiences of unequal treatment.

What Do American Muslims Actually Say About Violence?

There is another way to test a widespread generalization: ask Muslim Americans about their views directly.

In a 2017 Pew survey, 76% of Muslim Americans said targeting and killing civilians to advance a political, social, or religious cause could never be justified. Among U.S. adults overall, 59% gave that answer. Similar shares of Muslim Americans and the general public said such violence could often or sometimes be justified: 12% and 14%, respectively.

This is not a current census of every Muslim's beliefs, and a single survey item cannot resolve every debate over religion, extremism, or violence. But it directly contradicts the assumption that Muslim Americans, as a population, are uniquely willing to justify attacks on civilians.

Criticism of religious teachings, governments, and extremist organizations remains legitimate. The analytical error occurs when evidence about one doctrine, movement, or individual's actions is converted into collective blame for people who share a religious label.

What Can Actually Change Attitudes?

The research points to several practical conclusions, with different degrees of certainty.

Meaningful contact is better supported than superficial exposure. The broad intergroup-contact literature and newer Muslim-related field studies suggest that opportunities for sustained, constructive interaction can help. Merely passing a Muslim person in public may not do the same thing.

Accurate knowledge helps, but facts alone are not the whole mechanism. Pew found a large knowledge difference between people who knew Muslims and people who did not. That association could reflect learning, self-selection, or both. The contact literature also points to relationships, trust, empathy, and reduced anxiety.

Media framing deserves scrutiny. Controlled experiments demonstrate that negative portrayals can increase hostility and support for restrictive policies. Reporting should identify the individual, organization, and evidence at issue rather than use religious identity as a shortcut to suspicion.

Political spending should be followed, not merely denounced. The public can scrutinize financing, ad content, and factual claims. A verified ad expenditure is evidence of an attempted message, not automatic proof of a successful persuasion campaign.

And Muslim Americans should not be treated as one political or cultural bloc. They differ in race, ethnicity, theology, degree of religious observance, political views, and personal experience. No one individual can represent millions of people, just as no Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or nonreligious American can represent every member of their community.

What the Evidence Supports, and What It Does Not

The broader pattern is clear: personal experience is one source of information, but it competes with stories supplied by media, politics, social networks, and institutions. The relative influence of those sources varies and cannot be reduced to a single national number from the available research.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it true that two-thirds of Americans have never met a Muslim?

The surveys reviewed here do not establish that claim. Pew found that 50% of U.S. adults personally knew a Muslim in 2022. It did not ask whether respondents had ever encountered a Muslim, so the two figures should not be treated as interchangeable.

Is Islamophobia increasing in the United States?

Several measures indicate substantial or rising negative perceptions, but they do not track one identical phenomenon. Pew's Islam-and-violence measure was 25% in 2002 and 51% in 2026, with fluctuations and methodological changes in between. ISPU's five-item Islamophobia Index also rose from 2022 to 2025. These are different measurements and should be described separately.

Does having a Muslim friend make someone less prejudiced?

It is generally associated with more favorable views, and contact research suggests structured, positive interactions can improve attitudes. But people also choose friendships partly based on existing attitudes, so surveys of friendship alone cannot prove causation.

Are negative opinions about Islam always Islamophobia?

No. Criticizing a religion's teachings or a political movement is not necessarily prejudice against its adherents. The stronger warning sign is unsupported collective blame: assuming Muslim people are violent, disloyal, or deserving of unequal treatment because they are Muslim.

Is there evidence that wealthy donors finance anti-Muslim propaganda?

There are documented funding and advertising records, including CAIR's historical analysis of $105.9 million in grants to organizations it classified as anti-Muslim and a reported $46 million in 2026 Michigan political ads invoking Muslim identity, terrorism, or 9/11. The classifications and spending categories need careful interpretation. Neither figure proves how much money was spent specifically on false claims or how many people's opinions were changed.

Did anti-Muslim ads cause Abdul El-Sayed to win in Michigan?

There is no basis to claim that from the election result. El-Sayed won despite extensive attack advertising. Whether the ads helped him, hurt him, or had mixed effects is an unanswered causal question.

The Question Behind the Numbers

The evidence does not support the idea that negative perceptions of Muslims are simply the inevitable result of Americans having never met them. It also does not support a single, fully measured conspiracy that explains every negative belief.

What the research does show is more specific: contact can improve attitudes; negative media portrayals can worsen them; political identity is associated with extraordinarily different views; and real organizations spend real money trying to shape the public debate.

That leaves a test every reader can apply without accepting anyone's political framing: Is a claim about Muslims supported by evidence about the people or conduct in question, or does it ask us to treat millions of strangers as responsible for an identity they share?

The difference is the difference between making a judgment and inheriting someone else's prejudice.

—

References and Further Reading

Primary Public-Opinion Data

• 25 Years After 9/11, a Portrait of Muslim Americans – Pew Research Center, September 3, 2026. The principal source for 2026 perceptions, historical Islam-and-violence trends, the partisan gap, Muslim American experiences, population estimates, and the compiled FBI incident series.
• Americans Feel More Positive Than Negative About Jews, Mainline Protestants, Catholics – Pew Research Center, March 15, 2023. The original 2022 survey containing acquaintance and favorability measures, including the 50% who personally knew a Muslim.
• Personally Know a Muslim – Pew Research Center, September 28, 2009. Historical acquaintance estimates and differences by education and age.
• How Many People of Different Faiths Do You Know? – Pew Research Center, July 17, 2014. Acquaintance estimates from the American Trends Panel.
• Republicans Prefer Blunt Talk About Islamic Extremism, Democrats Favor Caution – Pew Research Center, February 2016. Includes the non-Muslim respondent acquaintance question and related political-attitude measures.
• Factors Linked With Religious Knowledge – Pew Research Center, July 23, 2019. Original data behind the 76%-versus-46% Ramadan knowledge comparison.
• Terrorism and Concerns About Extremism – Pew Research Center, July 26, 2017. Muslim American and overall U.S. attitudes about violence against civilians.
• American Muslim Poll 2025: Islamophobia Index – Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, October 2025, with May 2026 corrections. Five-item stereotype index and self-reported discrimination, including methodological qualifications.

Original Scientific Studies

• A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory – Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006. Meta-analysis encompassing 515 contact studies and 713 independent samples.
• Virtual Contact Improves Intergroup Relations Between Non-Muslim American and Muslim Students – Shira Hebel-Sela and colleagues, Communications Psychology, March 2025. Two field quasi-experiments involving 2,886 participants; examines attitudes and dehumanization following structured online contact.
• The Media Matters: Muslim American Portrayals and the Effects on Mass Attitudes – Nazita Lajevardi, The Journal of Politics, 2021. Cable-news content analysis and experimental evidence on the effects of negative portrayals.
• Testing the Effects of Political Rhetoric Towards Muslims as a Facilitator and Barrier for Intergroup Contact – John Shayegh and Becky Choma, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2025. Randomized experiments examining political rhetoric, trust, and contact intentions.

Funding Records and Independent Reporting

• Islamophobia in the Mainstream – Council on American-Islamic Relations, 2022. An advocacy organization's historical grantmaking investigation. Its categories should not be mistaken for government findings or a direct tally of advertising expenditures.
• How Islamophobia Backfired and Helped Elect the First Muslim Senator – The Washington Post, November 6, 2026. Original reporting using AdImpact estimates on Islam-, terrorism-, and 9/11-related Michigan attack advertising. The reporting's conclusion about electoral effects is not independently established by the spending figures.
• Progressive Democrat Abdul El-Sayed Wins Michigan Senate Race – Associated Press, November 2026. Independent election reporting confirming the result and its historical significance.

Related sherafy.com Investigation

• Israel, Stagwell and "Radical Jihadism": Did Israel Use Fear of Muslims to Rebuild Support? – sherafy.com, September 2026. A separate records-based investigation of a particular influence operation. It does not, by itself, establish the causes of nationwide U.S. attitudes.

Research currency and methodology: Reviewed through November 7, 2026. Percentage-point changes are calculated from published, rounded survey percentages. Survey questions, samples, and collection modes are not identical across years; the historical comparisons are descriptive, not causal estimates. This article synthesizes original studies, public surveys, documented funding research, and independent reporting. It does not claim to have independently audited every tax filing or advertisement included in secondary spending analyses. Election results and reported ad-spending estimates may be updated as additional records become available.