Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consid…
This bill (Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025) would amend the Anti‑Terrorism Act of 1987 to treat the Muslim Brotherhood and its branches as terrorist organizations for purposes of U.S. law.
It adds findings linking Hamas to the Muslim Brotherhood, requires new definitions for "Muslim Brotherhood," "branch," and "member," and requires the Secretary of State to submit an initial and annual unclassified report (with classified annex if appropriate) identifying Brotherhood branches and whether they meet criteria for designation.
The President would be required within set timeframes to impose sanctions — including designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under INA section 219(a) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) measures under E.O. 13224 — on the Muslim Brotherhood and on branches the Secretary identifies as meeting designation criteria; such sanctions cannot be removed for at least four years after a positive determination.
Because the bill mandates aggressive, broad designations and sanctions against a transnational socio‑religious movement, it is high‑stakes and ideologically charged. While elements of the proposal (targeting groups associated with terrorism) have intuitive political appeal, the expansive definitions, mandatory executive directives, absence of nuance or carve‑outs, and probable legal and diplomatic pushback reduce near‑term viability. The measure is more likely to provoke substantial amendment, legal challenge, or be folded into larger legislation than to pass in its present, uncompromising form.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly framed substantive statute that amends existing law, prescribes specific designations and sanctions, and establishes reporting obligations. It integrates with existing statutory authorities and sets concrete timelines.
Scope of designation: liberals worry it will sweep in peaceful religious/charitable activity; conservatives see broad scope as necessary to disrupt support networks.
Scope of designation: liberals worry it will sweep in peaceful religious/charitable activity; conservatives see broad scope as necessary to disrupt support networks.
A mainstream liberal/left-leaning observer would likely view this bill skeptically.
While recognizing the goal of countering violent extremist groups like Hamas, they would be concerned that the bill’s broad statutory definitions and automatic sanctions could sweep in nonviolent organizations, charities, members of civil society, and ordinary Muslims.
They would also worry about effects on civil liberties, freedom of association and religion, due process for individuals and organizations, and potential chilling effects on humanitarian aid and community organizations.
A centrist/moderate observer would have a mixed reaction: they would appreciate stronger tools against groups tied to terrorism and the requirement for regular State Department reporting, but be wary of the bill’s breadth and potential unintended consequences.
They would emphasize the need for clear evidence standards, narrowly tailored designations, safeguards to avoid impeding legitimate humanitarian work, and attention to diplomatic repercussions with partners in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Overall, a centrist would look for amendments and tighter definitions before committing support.
A mainstream conservative observer would generally view the bill favorably as a strong national-security measure.
They would applaud mandating designation and sanctions against the Muslim Brotherhood, citing connections between the Brotherhood and violent groups like Hamas and the need to restrict funding, travel, and operations of Islamist extremist networks.
They would also welcome the mandatory visa ineligibility and revocation provisions as tools to enhance security.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Because the bill mandates aggressive, broad designations and sanctions against a transnational socio‑religious movement, it is high‑stakes and ideologically charged. While elements of the proposal (targeting groups associated with terrorism) have intuitive political appeal, the expansive definitions, mandatory executive directives, absence of nuance or carve‑outs, and probable legal and diplomatic pushback reduce near‑term viability. The measure is more likely to provoke substantial amendment, legal challenge, or be folded into larger legislation than to pass in its present, uncompromising form.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope of designation: liberals worry it will sweep in peaceful religious/charitable activity; conservatives see broad scope as necessary to…
Because the bill mandates aggressive, broad designations and sanctions against a transnational socio‑religious movement, it is high‑stakes…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly framed substantive statute that amends existing law, prescribes specific designations and sanctions, and establishes reporting obligations. It integrates…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.