In a sign of serious escalation of the campaign by the US government against perceived enemies of Israeli strategic interests in the Middle East, the US government has classified Muslim Brotherhood organizations in Egypt, the state of Lebanon, and the Kingdom of Jordan as “terrorist” organizations. This was announced by the US government on Tuesday and follows an executive order by the US President Donald Trump.
The designations reflect a sharp convergence of US counterterrorism policy with regional power politics, particularly as Israel’s war in Gaza and broader regional confrontations continue to reshape alliances and legal thresholds.
Differing terrorism labels reveal political calculations
The Trump administration gave three different legal designations for the three wings, highlighting the discretionary and political nature of the process. The US Treasury Department designated the Egyptian and Jordanian organizations as “specially designated global terrorists” whereas the State Department designated the Lebanese group under the more serious “foreign terrorist organization” designation.
Justification of the move cited alleged support for Hamas and what it described as “activities against Israeli interests in the Middle East.” According to the Treasury Department, various Muslim Brotherhood chapters have presented themselves to the world as legitimate civic organisations while all too often “explicitly and enthusiastically” supporting armed groups opposed to Israel.
Legal experts note that the FTO designation carries sweeping consequences, including criminal penalties for material support, asset freezes, and automatic US travel bans, often without the level of judicial scrutiny required in criminal courts.
Muslim Brotherhood rejects allegations, cites foreign pressure
Salah Abdel Haq, the acting general guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, rejected the designation outright, saying the group would pursue all available legal avenues to challenge what he described as a politically motivated decision.
He denied that the organisation had engaged in or supported terrorism, arguing that the US action was driven by lobbying from Israel and the United Arab Emirates, both of which have long sought to marginalise Islamist political movements across the region.
“This designation is unsupported by credible evidence,”
Abdel Haq said in a statement to Al Jazeera, adding that it reflects
“external foreign pressure rather than an objective assessment of US interests or facts on the ground.”
A movement with deep political roots across the region
With its founding in 1928 by Hassan Al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood has grown into being considered “one of the Islamist movements with the biggest influence in the Middle East,” with “political parties, charitable and social groups” being among its offshoots across different countries. Many of its local chapters claim a commitment to participating in politics through peaceful means, yet they receive disparate treatment from either governments that recognized them as political parties or made them criminal groups.
In this case, the Lebanese Brotherhood’s al-Jamaa al-Islamiya is recognized by the Lebanese authorities as a political as well as a social movement with representation within the Lebanese parliament. In the case of Jordan, the political wing of the Brotherhood, the Islamic Action Front party gained 31 seats during the 2024 parliamentary election. This clearly indicates their widespread support despite the Jordanian government’s move to ban the group as a result of alleged involvement in a sabotage act last year.
In Egypt, the Brotherhood briefly governed after winning the country’s only democratically held presidential election in 2012. President Mohamed Morsi was overthrown in a 2013 military coup, and the organisation has since been outlawed, with thousands of members imprisoned or forced into exile. Morsi died in custody in 2019, a case that drew international condemnation.
Regional governments welcome move as critics warn of repression
Egypt’s Foreign Ministry welcomed Washington’s designation of the Egyptian branch as a “pivotal step,” framing it as validation of Cairo’s decade-long crackdown. The ministry said the move reflects the
“danger of this group and its extremist ideology”
and the threat it allegedly poses to regional and international security.
Human rights groups, however, have long argued that Egypt’s campaign against the Brotherhood has blurred the line between counterterrorism and systematic political repression, with mass trials, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings documented since 2013.
Gaza war and Israel factor loom large
Muslim Brotherhood-inspired groups have been among the most vocal critics of Israel’s war in Gaza, which rights organisations and legal experts have increasingly described as genocidal. In Lebanon, al-Jamaa al-Islamiya openly backed Hezbollah’s “support front” against Israel, a campaign that escalated into a full-scale war in September 2024.
Following the US designation, the Lebanese group stressed that it operates legally under Lebanese law and that Washington’s move has no judicial standing inside Lebanon.
“This is a political and administrative American decision,”
the group said, adding that it “serves the interests of the Israeli occupation” rather than regional stability.
Domestic repercussions extend into the United States
These classifications have already made their impact within the US, where conservative groups and pro-Israel movements have long attempted to equate Muslim civil society bodies with terrorism. Just a short time after news of Trump’s executive order, the two Republicans from Texas and Florida worked to label the Council for American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, a ‘terrorist’ group, along with the Muslim Brotherhood.
CAIR, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US, claims it has no linkages to the Brotherhood and has filed lawsuits against the list of designations, citing constitutional rights. Civil liberties groups have condemned the initiative as an attempt to criminalize dissent, especially against Israeli policy, under the cloak of the fight against terror.
A precedent with far-reaching implications
By branding politically active Islamist movements as terrorist groups without public evidence of operational violence, the Trump administration has expanded the boundaries of US counterterrorism policy in ways critics say could undermine international legal norms.
The decision not only aligns Washington more closely with authoritarian regional allies but also risks setting a precedent in which ideological opposition and political activism are treated as terrorism, both abroad and at home.
As legal challenges mount and regional tensions deepen, the designations raise a central question: whether US counterterrorism policy is being driven by genuine security concerns—or increasingly shaped by geopolitics, lobbying, and the politics of the Gaza war.
