President Trump says he will label the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization, a move described as decisive and aimed at cutting off funding and influence.
President Donald Trump has announced plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, and his message is blunt and clear. Supporters say this is a long overdue step that aims to stop the group from operating with impunity. The administration frames the move as a direct effort to choke off resources and political cover that have allowed influence campaigns to persist.
Many argue the designation would have practical bite by restricting finance, movement, and legal protections that the Brotherhood has sometimes exploited. That push has momentum in state-level actions and among conservative lawmakers who see it as closing a loophole. The political angle is explicit: this is a reversal from prior administrations and a return to a tougher posture on Islamist networks.
Insiders say final paperwork is being prepared and that President Trump intends to use the strongest language available in the designation. Those close to the plan describe the effort as immediate and forceful, not symbolic. If completed, the label would make it a crime to provide material support to the group and allow for sanctions on leaders and financiers.
President Donald Trump told Just the News on Sunday morning that he will designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, striking a blow against a group long blamed for destabilizing the Middle East and radicalizing young Muslims. “It will be done in the strongest and most powerful terms,” Trump said. “Final documents are being drawn.”
The strategy behind the move is straightforward: treat the Brotherhood like any other transnational threat and use the full toolkit of sanctions and legal restrictions. Conservative officials argue the group has combined political organizing and extremist doctrine to dangerous effect. Cutting off their channels, they say, is about national security and protecting American institutions.
The move comes on the heels of advocacy from think tanks and lawmakers in Congress. Last week, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott designated both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations in the state.
Designating a group at the federal level would expand the impact beyond state proclamations and make federal penalties applicable across the country. That would include freezing assets, blocking communication channels, and providing grounds for deportation or prosecution of material supporters. Republicans supporting the step see it as a needed escalation against ideological networks that they believe undermine Western values.
The Brotherhood was founded by Sunni imam Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, with the aim of establishing an Islamic state — a caliphate — which would be governed by sharia law. Sayyid Qutb — a major thinker for and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s — was an Egyptian revolutionary whose promotion of jihad is believed to have inspired more modern jihadists such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Histories of the Brotherhood emphasize its roots in political Islam and its connection to ideas that later inspired violent jihadists. That documented lineage is a key reason supporters of designation argue the group belongs on terrorist lists. They point to decades of writings and networks that moved from political organizing into more radicalized movements in multiple countries.
Representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood met with a number of US officials, including staffers from former President Barack Obama’s White House, back in 2012 after Egypt’s revolution. Back during the Obama era, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told Politico that ‘Following Egypt’s revolution’ the US ‘broadened … engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors.’
That episode is often cited by critics as an example of poor judgment by previous administrations. Conservatives argue the engagement risked normalizing actors whose ultimate goals conflicted with American interests. The current push represents a deliberate correction, aiming to remove any ambiguity about how the U.S. treats organizations linked to transnational Islamist politics.
There will be legal and diplomatic complications, and opponents will challenge the designation in courts and through international channels. Still, the Republican case is simple: when groups mix political activity with ideology tied to extremist violence, they deserve the same treatment as other transnational threats. If federal action follows through, it will mark a clear policy break and a tougher stance on networks deemed hostile to American security and values.
