Since their emergence, modern Arab nation-states have found themselves in constant tension with transnational ideological movements that challenge their authority and pull loyalties beyond national borders. Chief among these groups is the Muslim Brotherhood, a cross-border organization whose ideas and objectives clash with most governments in the region, including those that permit it limited parliamentary or cabinet participation.
The Brotherhood resembles other ideological currents with formal party structures such as the Baathists, communists, and Arab nationalists, along with socialist and Nasserist offshoots. All promote political concepts that undermine existing state systems. Unsurprisingly, none of these movements ever succeeded sustainably in power, and those that briefly did were unable to hold onto it.
President Donald Trump shocked many observers when he directed the State Department and Treasury Department to prepare a report recommending a ban on dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood and the pursuit of certain branches in the region. The first entities likely to be targeted are its branches in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Once the 45-day review is complete, these branches could be designated terrorist organizations, placing their leaders and activists on sanctions lists. It is a significant development given that the Brotherhood remains the Arab world’s largest and most active political movement.
Just days earlier, the governor of Texas designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. It is unclear how large or influential the group is within the state, but the move serves as both a symbolic beginning and an early test case for pursuing the Brotherhood inside the United States.
Such a step is unusual. The US Constitution protects freedom of thought, belief, and political association. This is why the Communist Party has operated legally for a century and why neo-Nazi groups are permitted to exist as political movements, unlike in Europe. Yet those movements are marginal, while the Brotherhood enjoys a wider reach inside the US and growing influence among a rapidly expanding Muslim community. Its presence on American university campuses dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, but it grew significantly over the past decade and opened channels of cooperation with both major political parties.
The Brotherhood does not present itself as a subversive movement, like communism, but as an extension of America’s Muslim communities, mirroring established political organizations such as Jewish groups and their lobbying arm, AIPAC. In reality, the Brotherhood’s ideology is deeply hostile to the West. Yet this has not prevented it from partnering with Western institutions or benefiting from political and financial support. Publicly, the movement claims to uphold democratic principles and the peaceful rotation of power, a narrative that is inconsistent with its historical record and ideological foundations. Over the decades, the Brotherhood demonstrated remarkable flexibility: it cooperated with leftists, Arab nationalists, and Khomeinists, and its Iraqi branch even worked with the US occupation before reentering politics and government.
Calls to ban the Muslim Brotherhood intensified after the September 11 attacks, citing its role as an ideological incubator for extremist groups. But those calls found little traction in Congress or the White House until now. What changed? Most likely the Brotherhood’s global reaction to the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel and the fact that Hamas is itself a Brotherhood organization. This shifted public sentiment sharply and placed the movement under renewed scrutiny.
The broader American and Western mood has also turned decisively against political Islam, making legislative pushback far more likely. This shift does not contradict Washington’s recent outreach to the Syrian president, despite his extremist background, because he is viewed as separate from organized political Islamist movements.
A notable paradox lies in Israel’s position: while it wages war against Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, it permits another Brotherhood-linked party to operate legally and allows Palestinian citizens of Israel to serve in the Knesset. They have even joined governing coalitions in the past.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a transnational movement fundamentally opposed to the concept of the nation-state. Its strongest base of activity remains the Arab region, where it maintains significant support despite official denials. As an opposition force, it presents itself as an alternative to ruling systems. Yet in the rare instances where it held power, its governance record was poor both politically and economically – whether in Egypt, where it ruled for only one year, or Sudan, where it governed for three decades.
The broader idea of internationalism – unifying peoples or states under a single ideological project – has collapsed globally. Its strongest manifestations, communism and socialist internationalism, are long gone.
What remains unclear is whether Trump’s proposed ban will extend to Brotherhood-linked organizations that were established in the United States under distinctly American names. Internationally, Washington is likely to target fundraising networks, distribution channels, and the movement’s extensive media platforms. The US has done this before: in its global campaign against Iranian-affiliated organizations, it severed financial pipelines and shut down radio stations, television channels, websites, and social media networks.
Such a ban would be quietly welcomed by many Arab governments, including those that still permit the Brotherhood to participate in politics. For these states, the movement poses a direct threat to national stability. It presents itself as a domestic alternative and enjoys external extensions that reinforce it.
