US redraws the lines on the Muslim Brotherhood

Political circles in the US and the Middle East are closely watching for a decision to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation, marking a significant shift in Washington’s approach toward Islamist movements with transnational reach. For decades, the group operated with relative freedom, raising funds and advancing its agendas by penetrating corridors of US politics and financing its activities across the Middle East, including in Sudan, where Brotherhood-affiliated networks have become one of the drivers of war, destruction, and grave crimes.

The group now finds itself facing an international shift that is steadily narrowing its room for manoeuvre. This comes at a time when it seeks to reclaim the influence it once enjoyed before being rejected across much of the Arab world, despite finding backing in some Middle Eastern and European countries. A formal designation would fundamentally alter this situation, reshaping US policy toward the group and directly affecting efforts to confront the Muslim Brotherhood, its networks, and its political and financial influence both within the US and globally.

Such a decision reflects a new reading in Washington of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the Middle East and beyond. Across the region, the group has been closely associated with political and security instability, exploiting public space and crises to infiltrate state institutions and advance its objectives. As the impact of a potential US move became apparent, divergent and sometimes contradictory positions emerged among the Muslim Brotherhood’s offshoots, in apparent attempts to circumvent the expected legal and financial consequences.

In this context, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare a report on designating certain branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organisations, or their members as global terrorists, particularly in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. This marked a notable step in confronting violence and destabilisation, particularly in light of the well-documented links between the Muslim Brotherhood and unrest and terrorism in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and several other Middle Eastern countries, driven by an extremist ideology that rejects the nation-state and promotes transnational projects serving radical groups, grounded in a distorted and selective interpretation of Islam.

The debate within US political circles over designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation is not new. It has been raised repeatedly in Congress and national security institutions, yet efforts to reach a final decision were long obstructed, particularly by elements within the Democratic Party, despite the group’s manipulation of its organisational and financial networks across universities and civil society spaces. Today, however, revisiting Washington’s stance has become increasingly unavoidable, especially in light of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological and organisational links to extremist groups, its transnational funding networks, and its exploitation of legal frameworks governing political and economic activity.

By designating the group as a terrorist organisation, US authorities would be empowered to significantly expand financial surveillance, monitor movements, freeze assets, prohibit dealings with suspicious entities, and prosecute individuals who support the organisation. In practical terms, this would mean pursuing the Muslim Brotherhood across the US, whether as individuals or through institutions and associations operating under different names.

At the international level, countries that host the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and Europe would find themselves in a difficult position in their relations with Washington. Such a move could affect broader cooperation frameworks and encourage European states to adopt a similar approach toward the terrorist group. Even if the US decision falls short of a full designation and instead imposes financial and security restrictions, governments that cooperate with the group would be compelled to recalibrate their ties with Washington to avoid exposure to sanctions linked to permitting wanted individuals or organisations to operate on their territory.

The international community now awaits the final decision of the US administration regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, which will criminalise the group’s activities, impose economic sanctions, bar its members from entering the US, and prohibit any person residing in the US or subject to its jurisdiction from providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organisation.

Confronting a transnational movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood requires a broader and more coordinated effort, particularly in disentangling religion from political instrumentalisation in the US, Europe, and the wider Middle East. The group’s use of religious slogans to advance political programmes and ambitions for a form of global governance follows a systematic strategy that should not be addressed through isolated initiatives alone. Instead, it should be confronted through collective action that rejects such movements outright and opposes the exploitation of religion for narrow political interests that ultimately affect the lives and stability of millions around the world.

Some US states, most notably Texas, have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation, a move that has also extended to affiliated entities such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In Europe, however, responses are still hesitant. Several countries continue to allow Brotherhood-linked networks room to expand, plan, and operate beyond their borders. In Sudan, the Muslim Brotherhood’s role has evolved into a central force of state destruction, as it incites war, actively participates through armed militias, and rejects any initiative aimed at ending the conflict or pursuing peace.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s footprint now spans multiple regions worldwide, following a familiar pattern of infiltration through migration channels, civil society organizations, charities, universities, and Islamic centers. Yet Sudan represents a particularly dangerous turning point. There, the group has pushed the country toward a point of no return, as ending the war directly threatens its survival and undermines its attempt to fuse ideology with political power. Should pressure mount against the group and it be decisively rejected within Sudan, the prospects for peace and stability would significantly improve.

While the US move to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation does not explicitly include its Sudanese branch, this does not shield its members from accountability. They remain vulnerable to legal pursuit in the US and elsewhere, given their documented involvement in crimes and their role in the destruction of the Sudanese state and society. Eventually, the designation itself could be expanded to include the group’s Sudanese branch, particularly as investigations expose its involvement in killings, terrorism, and systematic violence in Sudan.

The US administration’s decision has effectively opened the door to broader legal action against the Muslim Brotherhood, and it is unlikely to remain confined to specific branches in the future. The absence of an explicit reference to Sudan does not imply tolerance of the group’s financial and organisational networks operating freely. Ending the war and excluding the group from any political process are essential first steps toward stability and peace, as is preventing the group from manipulating Sudan’s future from behind military leadership structures.

Wherever the Muslim Brotherhood has taken root, the result has been social fragmentation and political damage. Today, it is being designated a terrorist organisation in the US; tomorrow, European states are likely to adopt more stringent measures against Brotherhood-linked entities, particularly as suspicious funding networks, internal societal penetration, and links to violence come further into view.

The activities of the Muslim Brotherhood fundamentally contradict humanitarian values and international legal norms. The group has been implicated in fueling armed conflicts, deepening divisions, supporting militias, and carrying out terrorist activities across several countries. A unified international response is therefore essential to curbing its destructive, transnational activities and limiting its capacity to destabilize societies.

Shamsa Al Qubaisi is a Researcher at TRENDS Research and Advisory