Joint Statement on the U.S. Designation of Muslim Brotherhood Chapters
Naming it one will only bolster repression in the Middle East and the United States.
January 27, 2026
The decision by the Trump Administration to designate Muslim Brotherhood chapters in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon as terrorist organizations represents a serious policy error with far-reaching consequences. It is a step that weakens U.S. interests abroad, undermines democratic principles in the Middle East, and North Africa, and risks significant harm to civil liberties at home.
Counter-terrorism tools are most effective when they are precise, evidence-based, and narrowly targeted at actors engaged in violence. Expanding terrorism designations to encompass broad political and social movements, rather than clearly defined violent organizations, erodes the credibility and integrity of those tools. It also blurs the critical distinction between terrorism and nonviolent political participation, a distinction that lies at the heart of democratic governance.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a single global organization operating under a unified command. It is a loose family of national movements that differ widely in ideology, behavior, and political context. In several countries, Brotherhood-affiliated parties and figures have participated openly in elections, served in parliaments, and operated within legal political systems. Treating such movements as inherently terrorist disregards decades of political reality and risks destabilizing governments and fomenting extremism.
History offers clear lessons. When nonviolent political opposition is excluded, criminalized, or driven underground, the result is not stability but polarization, radicalization, and authoritarian consolidation. From Algeria in the 1990s to Egypt after 2013, the systematic closure of political space has produced long-term insecurity and weakened prospects for democratic reforms. Policies that delegitimize peaceful participation strengthen extremist narratives that argue ballots are meaningless and that violence is the only path to change.
This decision also risks aligning the United States with the narratives and practices of authoritarian and corrupt regimes that have long used the label of “terrorism” to justify mass repression, silence dissent, and dismantle civil society. Such alignment undermines U.S. credibility as a supporter of democratic governance and human rights, and reduces American leverage with reform-minded actors across the region.
At home, the consequences are equally troubling. There is no Muslim Brotherhood organization operating in the United States. Yet for years, unfounded conspiracy theories have sought to portray mainstream Muslim institutions as part of a shadowy terrorist network. A broad and symbolic designation invites guilt by association, chills lawful civic and religious activity, and risks abuse through overbroad interpretations of “material support.” This undermines trust between Muslim communities and public institutions, trust that is essential to effective counter-terrorism and public safety.
The United States is strongest when it defends both security and democratic values, not when it sacrifices one in the name of the other. Terrorism designations should remain focused on actors who engage in or directly support violence. Expanding them to target nonviolent political movements weakens the rule of law, damages U.S. interests, and undermines the very stability such measures claim to protect.
For these reasons, we strongly oppose this designation and urge U.S. policymakers to reconsider this approach. Precision, proportionality, and respect for political pluralism are not signs of weakness. They are the foundation of effective security policy and a credible commitment to democracy.
------------------------
Radwan A. Masmoudi, Ph.D.
President
Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID)
Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director
Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN)
