Peloni: Very Important Article. Pretending that there are two sides to Evil is how we come to strengthen it in our own societies. Notably, among those castigated as the bad, or outlawed, chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood, do not include the allies which Trump has found in Turkey and Qatar. Are we to accept that this is mere chance? Are we to ignore the role these powers have come to support terrorism around the world, terrorism which Trump himself once announced would no longer be tolerated? The implications of this process which supports these regimes exposes the real purpose of this move, which is not to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood but to normalize it, as if it seeks greater integration into the collapsing West.
A Critical Analysis of a Geopolitical Miscalculation
On 24 November 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order titled “Designation of Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” This order initiates a formal process to evaluate and potentially designate specific chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood—a transnational Islamist organisation founded in Egypt in 1928—as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). The move targets chapters in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, accusing them of fuelling terrorism, supporting groups like Hamas, and destabilising U.S. interests in the Middle East, particularly in the wake of the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel.
While ostensibly a robust national security measure, this executive order is a profound strategic miscalculation. It is a policy of theatre, not of substance. By selectively designating only certain, already moribund chapters rather than the organisation as a whole, the Trump administration has inadvertently performed a remarkable act of legitimisation. It has officially endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood’s core narrative, reinforcing the group’s long-standing argument that it is fundamentally a political movement, and that violence is the work of a rogue minority.
In seeking to appear tough on terrorism, the Trump administration has instead revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of its adversary. It has targeted the Brotherhood’s shadow while leaving its body untouched, and in the process, has granted it a legitimacy it could never have achieved on its own.
Selective Designation as Implicit Validation
The executive order’s fundamental flaw lies in its limited scope. It specifically targets the Muslim Brotherhood chapters in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt for their alleged material support to Hamas and other militant factions. The Lebanese chapter is cited for rocket attacks; the Egyptian for a senior leader’s inflammatory rhetoric; the Jordanian for aiding Hamas’s military wing.
This approach creates an official, state-sanctioned distinction between “good” (or at least, non-designated) and “bad” chapters. In doing so, it implicitly validates the Muslim Brotherhood’s institutional argument that violence is not central to its ideology but rather the work of specific, wayward elements. This nuanced, case-by-case evaluation stands in stark contrast to the blanket designations already implemented by several key Middle Eastern nations, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, which view the entire Brotherhood apparatus as an existential threat.
What am I missing? While it would have been much better to ban the MB for its stated desire to replace American law and culture with sharia and Islam, the proposed ban does not easily legitimize the MB.
If the argument is that the ban focuses apparently only on displays of physical violence, one must point out that there is inherent violence in the MB’s stated goal of:
“Civilization Jihadist responsibility” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within”
Those are their words. “Destroying” is key here and similar words of cultural destruction are found in other statements they hold dear.
Trump shows here his usual fogginess to get it that some people really are not “nice,” but this may be a good beginning. Possibly other people besides Trump are not yet ready to see how deep and not “nice” the Muslim threat is, so for now a bill can only go after what is obvious and immediately fear provoking. Otherwise, it might meet too much resistance.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
@Madeline
The implication of Trump’s plan implies that the MB has acceptable and non-acceptable aspects. In does so by selectively targeting the chapters of the MB which are the least threatening to the West, leaving those in Qatar and Turkey untouched, despite the fact that both these are intimately associated with terrorism against the West and indoctrination of the West.
OK, Qatar and Turkey should have been included. Cynical thoughts about Trump’s personal motives do arise. My quibble had to due with the word “legitimize” for the MB. The words “avoid” or “leaves out” might have been better.
It seems Trump is responding to Abbot’s initiative in banning the MB in Texas. If other governors do the same thing, Trump and the State Dep’t might see fit to expand the ban appropriately.
@Madeline
Actually, Trump has been working on this for at least a few months. Rubio announced this was in the works back in August.
@Madeleine It’s been suggested that doing it this way makes it less vulnerable to court challenges. I think a big obstacle stems from the U.S. Supreme Court knocking out the provision of the 1940 Alien and Registration Act, alsr known as the Smith Act that “Title I of the Act made it a crime to “organize any society, group, or assembly” that advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence, or to be a member of such a group.” AI Overview
“On June 17, 1957, Yates v. United States held unconstitutional the convictions of numerous party leaders in a ruling that distinguished between advocacy of an idea for incitement and the teaching of an idea as a concept. The same day, the Court ruled 6–1 in Watkins v. United States that defendants could use the First Amendment as a defense against “abuses of the legislative process”.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
@Madeline