U.S. Momentum to Classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terrorist Organization

The political climate in Washington is once again heating up around the long-debated issue of formally designating the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Fueled by a renewed bipartisan concern over national security and ideological extremism, several key lawmakers—led by Senator Ted Cruz—are spearheading a push to take decisive action against what they describe as a decades-long threat hiding in plain sight.

At the heart of this initiative is not just foreign policy, but domestic safety. The recent terrorist incident in Colorado, though still under investigation, has reignited concern over the ideological roots of lone-wolf terrorism. Analysts point to troubling ideological overlaps between the perpetrator's worldview and narratives commonly promoted by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated preachers and institutions abroad. This has lent urgency to the argument that the MB, despite its polished public image in the West, serves as an ideological incubator for radicalism.

A Renewed Legislative Push

Senator Cruz, long an advocate for confronting the MB’s influence, recently emphasized that this designation is “not only justified but overdue.” Referencing both historic and current legislation—such as the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act—he stressed the need to act against a movement that has demonstrable links to violent extremism. The Free Beacon recently reported that Congress may be approaching a decision, reviving a conversation that has been simmering for years but never fully resolved.

In fact, this is not a fringe issue. The push has drawn support from a bipartisan coalition concerned about the Brotherhood’s sophisticated infiltration of democratic institutions under the guise of religious moderation. These lawmakers argue that the group has skillfully exploited Western legal protections—speech, religion, and association—to propagate an ideology that is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Global Reach, Local Consequences

The Muslim Brotherhood’s history as the ideological wellspring for numerous terrorist organizations is well-documented. Groups like Hamas, which explicitly names the Brotherhood as its parent organization, and Al-Qaeda, which drew on MB teachings in its formation, are only the most visible examples. The Brotherhood’s global network—spanning the Middle East, Europe, and North America—has become a sophisticated engine for political Islamism, funding proxies and creating cultural footholds that challenge liberal democratic values.

The organization’s strategy is not one of outright violence in the West but of slow ideological subversion. This, critics argue, is precisely what makes it more dangerous. The Brotherhood has cultivated respectable fronts—educational institutions, advocacy groups, and religious organizations—that shield its deeper objectives from scrutiny.

Security Without Stigmatization

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as an FTO is not without controversy. Critics fear it may inadvertently stigmatize Muslims who have no association with the group. But proponents stress that this effort is targeted at a specific political movement, not a religion or ethnicity. As one congressional aide noted, “This is about identifying a transnational political actor whose ideology is rooted in hostility to liberal democracy—not about criminalizing faith.”

Striking the right balance between security and civil liberties is crucial, and lawmakers must tread carefully. But given the recurring patterns of radicalization, and the Brotherhood’s ideological fingerprints found across extremist movements, many in Washington argue that this step is necessary—not as a blanket solution, but as a foundational one.

Final Thought

In a world where terrorism is no longer confined to battlefields abroad, ideological battles matter. And so does clarity. The Muslim Brotherhood has long operated in the gray zone—avoiding accountability while continuing to inspire and incubate violence. If the U.S. is serious about confronting extremism at its root, re-evaluating the Brotherhood’s status is not only justified—it may be essential.