The American campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood is intensifying as the circle of targeting it widens in a number of states, the latest of which was the decision by Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Tuesday to classify the group as a “terrorist organization”.
The announcement by the state of Texas is historic, according to experts, especially with the description of the “Muslim Brotherhood” as a “foreign and criminal transnational organization,” which will impose significant and serious political and economic repercussions on it.
This declaration, which is based on “Texas” laws such as Senator Bill 17 of 2025, prohibits the “Muslim Brotherhood” and its members from purchasing or acquiring a flag in the law, and directs public assistance, Ken Paxton, from suing to shut it down, delivering severe blows to the humanitarian network operating under the guise of civil organizations.
Interestingly, this ban in Texas, the state with the largest Muslim community in the American South, with about 313,000 Muslims according to the latest statistics, is not just a local measure, but according to experts, it is an indication of a shift in federal policy, and will be a “domino effect,” as other states such as Florida and Arkansas are considering similar legislation.
The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, is not just a religious movement, but a transcontinental organization that seeks to impose its ideology globally through strategies of “preaching” and “jihad,” as stated in its internal documents.
In America, the group has been operating for decades through indirect branches, raising real security concerns. The Brotherhood controls a large part of Islamic associations, and after this ban, members of the organization are expected to go underground or emigrate to other states.
Political and media implications Hussein Khader, Deputy Chairman of the Integration and Migration Secretariat of the German Social Democratic Party, explained that the decision by the state of Texas to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization has significant political and media implications, and repercussions for Europe, as it increases political pressure on the governments of the Old Continent to strengthen positions against networks linked to the Brotherhood.
According to Khader, the decision also gives media legitimacy to the forces that are demanding more measures, along with accelerating reviews and funding policies, and may push some countries to tighten control over the funding of associations and individuals linked to organizations suspected of having ties to the Brotherhood, especially with regard to foreign funding and money laundering.
Khader explained that one of the repercussions of the decision is also the exchange of intelligence information, and that although this is limited, the increasing American positions, even at the state level, may encourage the exchange of information between law enforcement agencies, and enhance cooperation in tracking cross-border networks.
Khader noted that the decision carries strong symbolic weight, as it provides political momentum and leverage for those demanding strict measures against the Brotherhood, and serves as a catalyst for new policies that may accelerate the enactment of laws to monitor foreign funding and strengthen investigations, especially in countries with actual suspicions about the activities of certain networks.
European response Khader stressed the need for any European response to be balanced, so that it is not exploited and portrayed as violations of religious and political freedoms, which could weaken the trust of Muslim communities in the state.
He pointed out that the practical recommendation for European governments, within a decision of this kind, is to rely on clear legal standards and reliable evidence before any classification or ban, and to target individuals and networks according to their criminal or inciting activities.
Khader stressed the need to combine law enforcement with promoting integration and civil society to prevent the field from being emptied in favor of extremism, noting that unified European coordination is better than scattered reactions under external political pressure.
“From calling for terrorism”
The group has been present in the United States for decades, and operates within its various activities with a long-term strategy that was stated in the document “The Muslim Brotherhood in America” in 1984, which speaks of “weapons training in camps” and “counter-espionage” in addition to “destroying Western civilization from within”.
Although the group has not carried out “direct terrorism” in America, according to experts, it supports terrorism through funding and propaganda, making it a dangerous “soft threat,” as it has helped to fund, with millions of dollars, organizations banned in America such as the “Holy Land Foundation.”
Furthermore, Brotherhood branches such as “Hasm” and “Liwaa al-Thawra” in Egypt, which are designated as terrorist organizations by the United States, receive intellectual and financial support from the American network.
Even more dangerous is that the Muslim Brotherhood controls major Islamic associations that run hundreds of mosques and schools. These are missionary and educational institutions, but they promote “jihad” as a duty, as in the writings of Hassan al-Banna, who describes “jihad” as “fighting against infidels.”
In recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood has helped organize pro-Hamas protests on university campuses, leading to violent tensions. According to a previous congressional report, the organization “supports terrorism globally and undermines U.S. laws through intimidation and violence.”
What are the repercussions?
The Texas ban is a bold move, according to experts, and will later affect the group’s funding and projects. The Muslim Brotherhood and other affiliated associations own enormous real estate assets in the United States, including mosques and Islamic centers, and they are planning even larger projects. However, the ban will prevent any expansion, which will hinder the group’s funding, which depends in part on donations.
The new decision will also further weaken the Brotherhood’s credibility as a “civil organization,” and will inevitably open the door to investigations into its funding, which could lead to the loss of tax exemption.
