Washington, D.C. — In a decisive legislative move with far-reaching global implications, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted on Wednesday to advance a bipartisan bill requiring the president to formally designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization—a step that would align Washington’s policy with several key Middle Eastern allies, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.
The proposal, introduced by Representatives Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), passed with unanimous Republican backing and support from nearly half of the committee’s Democrats, a rare show of bipartisanship on a national security issue. If enacted, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025 would mandate that the administration add the Brotherhood and any of its affiliated branches operating in dozens of countries—among them Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, and Lebanon—to the State Department’s list of terrorist entities.
The bill now moves to the full House of Representatives for debate, while a companion proposal spearheaded by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) awaits introduction in the Senate.
Congressional Divide Over National Security and Civil Rights
While supporters hailed the measure as an overdue acknowledgment of the Brotherhood’s role in fomenting extremism across the Muslim world, critics warned that the bill’s broad scope risks conflating peaceful religious activism with terrorism. Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) cautioned that the legislation could unfairly target Muslim communities and harm U.S. relations with countries like Qatar and Turkey, which maintain ties with Brotherhood-linked organizations.
“I am deeply concerned about the domestic implications of this bill,” Meeks warned. “Its sweeping visa and designation provisions could amount to a backdoor Muslim ban—subjecting millions to arbitrary scrutiny.”
However, co-sponsor Rep. Jared Moskowitz dismissed such concerns, arguing that “our allies in the region—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the UAE—have all banned the Brotherhood. They know what it represents. It’s time the U.S. caught up.”
A Turning Point in U.S. Counter-Islamist Policy
The legislative push follows an executive order by President Donald Trump, directing the State and Treasury Departments to evaluate Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon for possible designation. The move, insiders say, marks one of the most significant national security realignments of Trump’s second term.
Founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood emerged as a global movement promoting pan-Islamic unity and political Islam under the banner of societal reform. Over time, the organization built a sprawling network of affiliates—some of which, like Hamas, have been directly implicated in acts of terrorism.
For decades, U.S. administrations treated the Brotherhood as a “non-violent” alternative to jihadist groups such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Yet officials and analysts now argue that the Brotherhood’s pragmatic approach—using political participation, student networks, and civil society groups to influence institutions—constitutes a subtler form of extremism that corrodes democratic norms from within.
Domestic and International Repercussions
The designation, if finalized, would trigger sweeping legal and financial sanctions, including asset freezes, visa bans, and greater scrutiny of organizations or individuals with suspected links to Brotherhood-affiliated entities. Analysts say the measure could reshape U.S. engagement strategies with Muslim-majority countries, potentially straining ties with Qatar and Turkey, the group’s most prominent patrons.
However, proponents insist that recalibration is necessary. “This is not about targeting faith,” one congressional staffer noted. “It’s about countering an ideological movement that manipulates democratic space to pursue an undemocratic agenda.”
The committee session also advanced companion legislation addressing antisemitism in Europe and sanctions on Iranian clerics who have issued calls for violence against President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Lawmakers emphasized that these measures are part of a broader strategy to coordinate American responses to transnational extremism and rising ideological radicalization.
Global Momentum and the End of Strategic Hesitation
The United States now joins a growing cohort of nations reevaluating their stance toward the Brotherhood. Countries such as Austria and the United Arab Emirates have already classified it as a terrorist entity after investigations revealed efforts to infiltrate educational, charitable, and political institutions. European governments, once hesitant to act for fear of stigmatizing Muslim communities, are increasingly recognizing the group’s authoritarian and anti-pluralist tendencies.
Experts note that the outcome in Washington could catalyze similar actions among U.S. allies. “If the U.S. designates the Brotherhood,” said one European security analyst, “it will create not just legal precedents but also a moral mandate for other democracies to confront ideological extremism that exploits their openness.”
The Brotherhood’s leadership, currently based in Turkey, has denied any direct organizational ties between its international affiliates, insisting that local chapters operate independently within their national laws. Yet the group’s online platforms have continued to glorify terror figures , describing them as “heroic” and “inspirational”—language that analysts say undermines its claims of non-violence.
Whether the congressional initiative succeeds or stalls in the Senate, the debate signals a fundamental shift. After decades of uncertainty and diplomatic caution, Washington appears prepared to confront political Islamism as a global security threat—one that no longer hides behind the semantic divide between “moderate” and “militant.”
With the era of strategic hesitation ending, the United States may be on the verge of reshaping its entire approach to Islamist movements—testing whether Western democracies can defend their principles without compromising their pluralism.
