The Trump administration should commit to designating the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
For decades, America has fought Islamic terrorism abroad. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood—the ideological godfather of jihadist movements worldwide—continues to operate freely under the guise of advocacy groups, political parties, and “civil rights” organizations.
Almost every significant Islamic terror group—from Hamas to Al-Qaeda—can trace its ideological origins back to it. While the Trump administration considered designating it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), bureaucratic roadblocks prevented decisive action. Given the upsurge in radical Islamist movements around the globe, including in Europe, passivity is not an option.
Put bluntly, the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical organization committed to establishing Islamic rule by any means necessary, including violence. The United States should not act as though it represents a political entity; it should recognize its actual nature.
Founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood has, since its inception, been committed to violent jihad. It preaches that Islam is not just a religion but a political system that must govern all aspects of life.
Al-Banna averred that jihad is a divine obligation of every Muslim to murder the enemies of Islam, including other Muslims. This dangerous ideology spread rapidly across the Arab world during the 1930s when the Great Depression upended world economies. By 1945, the Muslim Brotherhood had entrenched itself in campuses, mosques, union halls, lawyers’ associations, and charities throughout Arabic-speaking nations. To this day, it promotes violence and unrest throughout the Middle East.
The United States, which has historically prided itself on its constitution and the rule of law, would do well to recognize that allowing such organizations to operate within its borders is not an exercise in free speech but a failure to address a clear and present danger to national security.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic adaptability has allowed it to infiltrate political parties, charities, and advocacy groups. The disastrous rule of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt from 2012 to 2013 went a long way toward exposing its actual goals. Upon election, Morsi moved to centralize power—issuing a decree that placed his decisions beyond judicial review and suppressing dissent. The Muslim Brotherhood exploited democratic institutions as a Trojan horse for its authoritarian objectives.
The Trump administration took preliminary steps toward recognizing this threat, but more action is still needed.
What is to be done? A key step is the formal designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as an FTO. The claim that it is a nonviolent political entity is unpersuasive, as it has directly inspired jihadist groups—including Hamas and the Hasm Movement, both of which are already designated as terrorist organizations.
Next, the United States should crack down on Brotherhood-affiliated organizations that masquerade as advocacy groups. Many of these groups receive foreign funding to expand the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in America, exploiting democratic protections to spread their ideology.
The key U.S. Supreme Court case protecting the Brotherhood is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which overturned an Ohio law targeting the Ku Klux Klan and held that speeches advocating violence are only actionable if they are likely to incite imminent lawless action. Since no judge can predict with certainty whether speech will immediately lead to violence, lawmakers have been rendered powerless. If this decision were modified, existing state and federal laws could be used to strip the Muslim Brotherhood of its legal safe haven, restoring constitutional free speech protections to their original intent.
If American law remains unchanged, the Muslim Brotherhood will succeed in bringing the Israel-Hamas conflict to U.S. soil, fueling the anti-semitism seen on college campuses and beyond.
The belief that democratic resilience alone can counteract extremism is naive. It assumes that exposure to radical ideologies will be neutralized by the strength of liberal democracy. This view ignores the reality that counter-arguments are rarely presented, and those who attempt to speak out are often silenced through intimidation. Extremists exploit legal protections until they gain sufficient power to dismantle the very system that enabled them.
After the attack on October 7, 2023, Tunisia’s Ennahda party exposed its radical agenda, shedding its moderate facade. The aftermath of the attack further revealed Ennahda’s commitment to extremism, as its leaders openly glorified Hamas, branded those who condemned the group as traitors, and fostered an atmosphere of fear. In Morocco and Jordan, Brotherhood-affiliated parties continue to expand their ideological influence. Rather than prioritizing national interests, they justify violence, intimidate dissenters, and push societies toward deeper Islamist extremism.
This reality puts Arab governments in a dangerous predicament. Islamist parties wield fear as a weapon, silencing and intimidating society and crushing any challenge to their radical ideology. They do not merely reject opposing views—they seek to erase them, ensuring that no one dares to think, speak, or act outside their rigid, extremist framework. If these governments fail to act decisively, they risk allowing radical factions to hijack their nations, turning them into breeding grounds for further extremism and instability.
The United States must recognize that combating extremism requires a multi-pronged strategy, including legal action against extremist groups, enhanced counterterrorism cooperation with allies, and a fundamental reassessment of how free speech protections intersect with national security.
This is not an argument for suppressing dissent or curbing legitimate discourse but for acknowledging that extremism, when left unchecked, does not remain confined to rhetoric—it inevitably translates into action. The balance between civil liberties and security is not a binary choice but a matter of strategic judgment. The moment to act is now.
About the Author: Ahmed Charai
Ahmed Charai is the Publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune and serves on the boards of directors of the Atlantic Council, the International Crisis Group, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Center for the National Interest.
Image: Lena Ha / Shutterstock.com.
