A series of legal filings has revealed that an investigation into nearly 50 private schools in Texas—including several Islamic campuses—was significantly influenced by a researcher previously found liable for defamation in a British court. The state comptroller’s office initiated the probe into schools applying for the state’s new voucher program, citing concerns over alleged ties to foreign extremist groups and the Chinese government, according to court documents from a lawsuit filed by the affected schools.
The investigation into these institutions, which receive taxpayer-funded support through the state’s education voucher program, relied on research provided by Sam Westrop. The presiding judge in that case noted that there was “simply no evidence to support the allegation of terrorism,” and Westrop subsequently issued a correction on his website.
Despite this history, Westrop’s research became a cornerstone of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts’ inquiry into private schools. The scope of the state’s investigation, which involved contracting third-party researchers to examine the histories of nearly 50 schools, was broader than previously disclosed.
The Role of Third-Party Research and Defamation History
During the deposition, Miller confirmed that the comptroller’s office did not independently verify Westrop’s background before relying on his allegations.
The comptroller’s office had turned to outside help because, as Miller stated in his deposition, the agency is “not readily prepared to do investigations and to do deep research into foreign terrorist organizations or any other accusation.” Consequently, the agency provided a list of schools identified by Westrop and other sources to two counterterrorism researchers: Reuben Katz and Lara Burns, a retired FBI agent currently affiliated with George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. These researchers provided the state with dossiers on the targeted schools by cross-referencing school leadership against government databases.
Although all of the schools under investigation were eventually accepted into the voucher program, the legal battle continues as the plaintiffs seek class-action certification to ensure the comptroller’s office cannot repeat these exclusionary practices.
Conflicting Accounts of the Investigation
In the months following the lawsuit’s filing, the comptroller’s office maintained that it did not specifically target Islamic schools. Agency officials claimed these campuses were swept up in a broader administrative review of approximately 700 schools accredited by Cognia, a global nonprofit. The agency stated it set aside the group because not all schools had up-to-date accreditations, a requirement for participation in the Texas voucher program.
However, Miller’s deposition directly contradicted this explanation. He confirmed that the third-party researchers were tasked only with investigating those specific campuses, rather than the entire pool of over 2,600 schools participating in the program.
The investigation was further complicated by political pressure. In his deposition, Miller distanced the agency from these claims, stating, “There’s a lot of mistakes and misstatements in this particular letter,” and noting that the letter came as a surprise to his office.
Broader Context of Political Rhetoric
The controversy surrounding the inclusion of Islamic schools in the voucher program has unfolded against a backdrop of increasing anti-Muslim sentiment among some political circles in Texas. The case remains ongoing.
Attorneys for the Islamic schools argue that the state’s actions have created an environment of discrimination. “Religious liberty is not a temporary pass issued after a lawsuit,” said Eric Hudson, an attorney representing the schools. “We’re pressing on so equal treatment is the rule—not an exception granted under pressure.”
The Texas Comptroller’s office, which declined to comment for this report, has filed objections to the class-action request, arguing that the case is moot because the Islamic schools were ultimately admitted to the program. The state maintains that the court lacks jurisdiction to certify a class action under the current circumstances.
The legal proceedings remain active as the court considers whether to certify the class-action lawsuit.
Worth a look