In November 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to begin the process of classifying selected Muslim Brotherhood chapters in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists. The order instructs Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to produce an intelligence-driven report within 30 days and initiate formal designations within 45 days. This marks a revival of similar attempts made during Trump’s first term and aligns Washington more explicitly with Middle Eastern partners who have long labeled the Brotherhood a national security threat.
The administration’s briefings attribute the move to a reported transnational network of support between Brotherhood chapters and militant organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. According to the officials, the Jordanian Brotherhood affiliates have been offering material support to Hamas and Lebanese al-Jamaa al-Islamiya has been offering political and logistical assistance to Hamas and Hezbollah in their struggles with Israel. The Egyptian Brotherhood targeting is attributed to the supposed violence incitements by senior leaders in the 2023 Gaza war, which are based on intelligence sources that are not publicly available. The purpose of the order, as stated, is to freeze assets, block the support channels, as well as limit travel by people who have been identified to be linked to these activities.
Through such a broad strategy, the administration is indicating a resolve to limit the global political influence of the Brotherhood and a reduction of networks that can be considered as a threat to the security systems of the US and its allies.
Historical And Regional Context Of The Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt in 1928 and grew to be one of the largest Islamic movements in the entire Arab world. Its ideology combined both religious activism and political organizing and appealed to groups of the society who wanted something other than secular nationalism. The Brotherhood grew over the decades to have several branches in different nations, which were influenced by the local political conditions.
The legacy of the movement is controversial. Its proponents perceive it as a means of social service, grassroots mobilization, and nonviolent political involvement. Critics state that its ideological structure is overlapping with organizations that support militancy, such as Hamas that developed out of the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood. The crackdowns in Egypt, Syria, and other states by the state drove many members to the underground level, which added to a network which is at times informal and hard to map.
Evolution of branches across the Middle East
Chapters of Brotherhood developed in varied ways depending on geographical limitations. The Egyptian organization was made the most politically notable, as it was once elected by the Arab Spring before being banned once again. The Brotherhood in Jordan was semi-official and over decades they had walked a fine line between activism and collaboration with the monarchy. The al-Jamaa al-Islamiya in Lebanon became a part of political life, but at the same time took positions similar to the armed forces in the escalations in the region.
The longstanding U.S. policy dilemma
Over the years, the U.S. administrations have argued about the need to treat the Brotherhood as an ideological destabilizer or a political player. The decentralized organizational structure made it difficult to assess. Other policymakers considered the engagement as the prerequisite in the promotion of political pluralism; others stated that the group had an ideological base that might promote violent extremism. The 2025 directive issued by Trump will be a clear departure of the previous cautious measures in which the country took hard-line positions in line with the opinions of allies in the region.
Shifts driven by recent conflicts
The Gaza crisis in 2023 and the following polarization of the region contributed to the tension catalyzing the calls of the U.S. allies to take a single position against the Iran and Hamas-related Islamist groups. The developments are a part of the background that contributes to the shaping of the new presidential order.
Stakeholder Views And Political Implications
The Trump administration justifies the designation effort as a matter of national security. According to President Trump, the Brotherhood remains a threat to the stability of the partners and a threat to the security environment that influences American interests. Those in the Congress who have supported the move say that the international connections of the Brotherhood have long been under-appreciated and that formal designation is long overdue.
Analysts, though, emphasize on the political aspect of the decision. A university professor at the American University of Beirut Rami Khouri observed that the order is both a symbolic position and a repositioning with regard to the states that perceive the Brotherhood as an existential enemy. He further stated that it might have practical constraints considering the fact that a number of the Brotherhood branches are already in operation secretly as a result of former government bans.
Concerns regarding political Islam and broad labeling
According to scholars, the tendency to designate entire political movements as terrorist groups is a dangerous act meant to confuse the factors of violent extremism and peaceful political Islam. Opponents state that this general labeling may impair civil freedom, limit political freedom, and enhance scrutiny of Muslim groups. This issue echoes in the domestic policy of the U.S. where non-governmental organizations and other lobbying groups are concerned about the spillover effects in the civil society.
Domestic U.S. implications
The move is also an indication of increased domestic action against the perceived Islamist threats. In early 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared a statewide ban involving the Muslim brotherhood and the Council on American Islamic relations which further inflamed a debate concerning the effects of balancing security with civil rights. Civil liberties organizations claim that policy formulations designed under broad conceptual grouping are prone to overreaching particularly when based on intelligence testing that is not publicly subjected to scrutiny.
Broader Geopolitical And Security Consequences
This new label reinforces the U.S. alliance with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, all of which designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist group. These states believe that the movement is a political competitor, which can enlist support of the people using their social networking.
Impact on networks linked to Hamas and Hezbollah
Financial means of funding Hamas or Hezbollah via affiliations of the Brotherhood may be disrupted by sanctions against organizations in territories with weak oversight mechanisms. Asset freeze and transaction blockage pose impediments on cross border flows but analysts warn that decentralized flows tend to rapidly respond by moving to informal financial pathways.
Risks of driving networks underground
The inclusion of terrorism labels to wider Islamist organizations could limit transparency. A secretive Brotherhood might render intelligence collection harder and issues against terrorism tougher in the long run. Security officials also observe that names have a tendency to create short term fragmentation but lead to radicalization when political avenues are blocked.
Influence on regional power balances
The order can strengthen local alliances against the Iranian influence and its core of proxies. It can also increase the tensions in Lebanon and in Jordan, where the Brotherhood groups have their localized support. The policymakers of those countries are now faced with the dilemma of how to juggle between the consequences of the U.S. pressure and their political balance within their own countries.
The Ongoing Debate Over Counterterrorism Strategy
The controversy of the 2025 initiative highlights the difficulty of dealing with movements that cut across politics, social and ideological lines. The scholars have suggested the use of a selective strategy based on particular branches of material support to violence instead of generalizations that include nonviolent actors.
One of the issues exists: how to distinguish between political Islamism and violent extremism in the ever-changing environment. The U.S. order is designed to limit the networks of armed groups, but is likely to create additional complications in the area of diplomatic interaction in order to stabilize fragile environments.
As developments continue unfolding, policymakers must confront the tension between decisive security measures and the need for nuanced strategies that recognize the diverse realities shaping Islamist movements across the Middle East. The implications of the 2025 designation process remain open-ended, influenced by political shifts, regional conflicts, and evolving intelligence assessments. The trajectory of U.S. policy toward the Muslim Brotherhood may ultimately reveal how states navigate ideological movements that cross borders, blend politics with religious identity, and intersect with long-standing regional rivalries.
