The senator’s new bill revives a long-running debate: is the Brotherhood a terror threat hiding in plain sight – or too complex for a one-size-fits-all designation?
June 11, 2025 14:35
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has set his sights on the Muslim Brotherhood. The first four attempts fell short, but Cruz is persevering. In the coming weeks, he will introduce a “modernised” version of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, which he first introduced in 2015.
"Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Russia” have designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation, Dr. Lorenzo Vidino, Director of the Program on Extremism at The George Washington University, noted, but they have “different legal requirements, have their own systems . . . have different approaches” than the United States. Those differences help explain not only why cementing this designation hasn’t been straightforward, but also why opinions vary about how to best oppose the Muslim Brotherhood.
Lara Burns, Head of Terrorism Research at the Program on Extremism at The George Washington University, spent over two decades working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including as the lead agent on the seminal Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case. Burns observed that it’s difficult for Westerners to grasp the Brotherhood’s worldview, including their centuries-long timeline. Their plans begin with winning “hearts and minds” before using “violent jihad to usurp whatever non-Islamist government” exists.
“If you look at the movement as a whole, it does promote violence. It’s just extremely strategic about when that violence is authorised,” Burns explained. The Brotherhood is “a subversive movement that spreads hate, anti-Western, anti-democratic principles, [and] advocates for violence against entities and people – not least Jews – to accomplish their own goals.”
“My message is the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a foreign terrorist organisation,” Burns said. “The designation would accomplish multiple goals: identify them for who they are, a subversive movement that wants to cause us harm . . . interrupt financial transactions,” and criminalise support. Finally, and “importantly, it would reduce the amount of antisemitic, anti-West, anti-democratic rhetoric that is being intentionally spread throughout our country with the purpose of sowing discord among us.”
Northeastern University Professor Max Abrahms, who studies counterterrorism, also supports the designation but commented that “the best counterargument for listing the Muslim Brotherhood as an FTO is the concern that it would infringe on free speech. Unlike other FTOs, in which the entire enterprise is oriented towards committing terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood has a much broader organisational structure . . . Whether the entire organisation can be listed as terrorist is a matter of debate.” In short, “designating the whole thing would be best, but [it] may be easier to focus on the most unquestionably terrorist aspect . . . to gain support from all quarters.”
The most contrarian view is Vidino’s. He told me, “The Brotherhood is a very nefarious group, in my opinion, but it acts in many ways. It’s not black and white; it’s very gray.” The Brotherhood is a mix of “terrorist, political” and “social organisation . . . the fact they have this ability to present themselves as moderate . . . makes them way more dangerous in the long-term. Nobody in Congress would meet with ISIS or Al Qaeda, but they do with the Brotherhood and go to their banquets.”
“The moment the bill is introduced you’ll see . . . Qatari funded think tanks, reporters, university centres, members of [Congress], and PR firms will start putting out articles about how the Brotherhood doesn’t exist in the West, or it’s moderate, and those against it are Islamophobes. There’s a whole machinery that springs into action.”
Vidino is “extremely sceptical on a bill going forward” and prefers Europe’s “more nuanced” approach. He cited France’s recent “very harsh, very spot on assessment of” the Brotherhood, which France has not designated an FTO. Vidino says there are “many ways to go after them, cut their funding, [and] make their life very difficult” including individual prosecutions and focusing on crimes like racketeering or tax evasion. “I’m not sure the terrorist designation is the most fitting one.”
“Name and shame,” Vidino urged, so politicians meeting with the Brotherhood are considered similar to someone “meeting with the Ku Klux Klan. Expose their extremely nasty agenda to women’s rights, gay rights, antisemitism, relationship to democracy, and freedom of religion. Make it clear their positions are . . . Constitutionally protected but repulsive.”
This isn’t Cruz’s first rodeo, so it’ll be interesting to see what he includes in his updated bill. We’ll also know shortly how open to change Congress is after October 7. But if ever there were a time for the federal government to reevaluate how to it addresses national security threats, it’s now.
