The Biden–Trump transition period has ignited a new wave of debate across Western capitals as the United States advances its most serious effort in decades toward formally designating branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). Analysts say the shift in Washington is already shaping political debates in parts of Europe, where governments are increasingly scrutinizing Brotherhood-linked structures operating within mosques, NGOs, and social associations.
This renewed tension erupted in Italy after the controversial case of Imam Mohamed Shahin in Turin, who was accused of making remarks interpreted as sympathetic to the Oct. 7 attacks. His legal team insists he has cooperated with Italian authorities for years and would face persecution in Egypt due to his political views. The case remains unresolved but has intensified national discussion around Islamist influence and the broader presence of Brotherhood-inspired networks across Italy.
US Executive Order Signals Major Policy Shift
On November 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to begin the process of assessing Brotherhood chapters in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon for possible inclusion on the U.S. terror list. The decision arrived shortly after Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “foreign terrorist organizations” under state law, preventing them from purchasing land.
Although only the U.S. Secretary of State can approve an official FTO designation, analysts note that the symbolism of Texas’ action—paired with a federal directive—is a clear signal that Washington has reached a “turning point” after years of internal disagreement.
Experts: Washington Is Aligning With Middle Eastern Hard-Line Partners
Two specialists consulted by The Media Line—Dr. Tallha Abdulrazaq, a Middle East political analyst, and Daniele Garofalo, an Italian researcher on radicalization—agree the U.S. is undergoing a deeper ideological realignment rather than just a legal review.
READ MORE: Can the Muslim Brotherhood’s Media Empire Be Dismantled?
Dr. Abdulrazaq argues that Trump’s late-2025 order reflects “a decisive shift away from diplomatic caution and toward alignment with Middle Eastern allies, particularly the UAE, Israel, and several Gulf monarchies that view the Brotherhood as the ideological root of regional instability.”
For decades, U.S. administrations differentiated between armed jihadist groups and nonviolent Islamist political movements. Brotherhood-affiliated political parties participated in elections in Jordan, Kuwait, and Egypt—briefly even winning the Egyptian presidency in 2012. That made a blanket terror designation diplomatically difficult.
However, Abdulrazaq says current political dynamics have recalibrated U.S. thinking, influenced not only by foreign-policy considerations but by domestic tensions surrounding Gaza-related campus activism.
“Hostility toward pro-Palestinian activism has created an environment where the administration can frame the Brotherhood as a tool to combat ‘foreign influence’ and ‘legalistic Islamism’ within the U.S.,” he said.
Why Past Attempts Failed
Between 2017 and 2019, several Republican lawmakers pushed for the same designation, but the State Department and Pentagon argued that the Brotherhood’s global structure did not meet the strict legal criteria of an FTO. They emphasized that the movement consists of decentralized networks, local chapters, parties, and NGOs—not a single command hierarchy directing violence.
Abdulrazaq warns that the latest move appears to sidestep that long-held assessment:
“Instead of relying solely on intelligence evidence, the current push leans heavily on political will,” he said, calling it “a major departure from previous U.S. counterterrorism doctrine.”
Arab States Criminalized the Movement Years Ago
The Muslim Brotherhood’s criminalization in the Middle East predates the American debate. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE banned the group between 2013 and 2014, arguing that it fueled political unrest after the Arab Spring. In April 2025, Jordan followed by outlawing the group entirely, closing its offices and confiscating assets.
Garofalo notes that authoritarian governments see the Brotherhood not merely as an ideological competitor, but as a political threat capable of mobilizing large populations.
“In much of the Middle East, the Brotherhood is treated as a rival power center,” he said.
Europe Takes a Different Approach—But Pressure Is Rising
In Europe, governments assess the Brotherhood through the lens of social cohesion, secularism, and ideological influence rather than terrorism. Still, the landscape is shifting.
-
Austria became the first EU state to ban the movement in 2021 under sweeping anti-extremism laws.
-
France has investigated Brotherhood-associated organizations, with a confidential 2025 report alleging attempts to gain influence in local institutions.
-
Germany maintains long-term surveillance of organizations it believes are tied to the Brotherhood’s ideological network.
According to Abdulrazaq, Europe lacks the legal basis for a full terror designation but is likely to move toward tighter restrictions:
“The EU won’t replicate the U.S. FTO label, but Washington’s decision will strengthen calls for financial monitoring, dissolution of associations, and increased pressure on Islamist networks.”
Garofalo adds that European governments face legal and constitutional barriers: evidence thresholds, due-process requirements, and protections for religious and civil organizations.
Brotherhood Influence in Europe Is Deeply Embedded
Garofalo stresses that Brotherhood-linked structures across Europe operate through community networks, education programs, cultural centers, and NGOs.
“These organizations are extremely resilient,” he said. “A simple terrorist label does not dismantle a social or ideological ecosystem.”
READ MORE: Trump Signals Possible Support for Terror Label on Muslim Brotherhood
This complexity explains why European states often adopt administrative measures—financial audits, oversight of associations, regulation of foreign funding—rather than outright bans.
Experts Warn of Possible Backfire Effects
Both analysts caution that a sweeping terror designation could drive nonviolent activists underground and blur distinctions between ideology and violence.
Abdulrazaq emphasizes that conflating peaceful political Islam with jihadism removes pathways for moderation:
“It risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where the movement becomes more radical because governments eliminate legal means of participation.”
He warns that such a move could make monitoring and deradicalization harder by pushing networks into secrecy.
Italy: Local Realities Illustrate the Broader Trend
Garofalo notes that Italy is already struggling with what he describes as the “expansive growth” of Brotherhood-inspired activism, particularly within civil society and pro-Palestine demonstrations.
He believes that, if properly structured, stronger oversight measures could help contain what he sees as “increasingly organized” ideological campaigns across Europe.
CONCLUSION
As the U.S. moves closer to formally labeling parts of the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, experts believe Europe will not replicate the step—but political pressure in capitals like Paris, Vienna, Rome, and Berlin is likely to intensify.
While European governments remain constrained by legal frameworks and civil liberties concerns, Washington’s dramatic shift is expected to accelerate financial investigations, regulatory scrutiny, and broader crackdowns on Islamist-linked organizations across the continent.
