Trump’s Designation Order: What It Means for the Muslim Brotherhood

President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. agencies to evaluate and, where supportable, designate certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to a statement posted on the White House website (White House presidential actions). The order instructs the State Department to build administrative records on specific foreign affiliates and work with the Treasury Department on associated financial sanctions, the statement said.

The move is drawing attention because it attempts to segment a diffuse, decades-old movement into distinct, country-level entities that can meet U.S. legal criteria for designation. Under the INA’s FTO standard, a group must be foreign, engage in terrorism or terrorism-related activity, and threaten the security of U.S. nationals or national security, according to the State Department’s public guidance (State Department: Foreign Terrorist Organizations). While the State Department already has authority to designate foreign groups, the order signals a policy priority to scrutinize Brotherhood-linked chapters that operate differently across the Middle East and North Africa.

If a chapter is designated, U.S. law triggers criminal prohibitions on providing it “material support or resources,” immigration bars, and financial restrictions that can cut off fundraising and banking access, according to federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) and Treasury’s counterterrorism sanctions program (Treasury: Counter Terrorism Sanctions). The State Department’s 2019 designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps showed a willingness to use FTO tools on complex organizations connected to governments, offering a recent precedent for expansive application (State Department: IRGC designation overview).

Tracing the Brotherhood’s Influence: Background and Context

Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood evolved into a social, religious, and political movement with affiliates and offshoots across the region, according to a backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR: What Is the Muslim Brotherhood?). Some branches operate as political parties participating in elections, while offshoots like Hamas have taken up armed struggle and have long been designated as terrorist organizations by the United States, CFR notes.

These differences matter in U.S. law: the FTO process weighs a group’s specific conduct and leadership rather than ideology alone, per State Department guidance (State Department: FTO criteria). That patchwork has complicated attempts to treat the Brotherhood as a single, global entity for designation purposes. The United Kingdom’s 2015 government review described the Brotherhood as “secretive and hierarchical,” but stopped short of a blanket terrorist designation, underscoring the movement’s varied expressions across countries (UK Government: Muslim Brotherhood Review – Main Findings).

U.S. policymakers have debated action for years. Congress considered but did not pass the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act” in multiple sessions, including a 2017 bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz that urged designation based on alleged support for terrorism (Congress.gov: S.68 — 115th Congress). Previous administrations weighed the legal and diplomatic risks of a sweeping move, with analysts warning that a one-size-fits-all approach might not meet the statutory evidentiary burden for each affiliate.

National and Global Impact: Reaction and Stakes

Diplomatically, the order could align Washington more closely with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, which have already outlawed the Brotherhood, while intensifying friction with governments that tolerate or harbor Brotherhood-linked figures, such as Turkey and Qatar, according to regional analyses summarized by CFR (CFR backgrounder). Countries with Brotherhood-affiliated political parties may face new sanctions exposure if specific chapters are designated, potentially complicating U.S. relations on security cooperation and aid programs handled through those entities.

For U.S. policy at home, formal designations would sharpen enforcement lines for immigration, banking compliance, and nonprofit oversight. Material-support laws carry stiff penalties and have drawn scrutiny from civil liberties groups for their breadth, particularly where guidance is evolving and organizations have both political and social-service arms (18 U.S.C. § 2339B; Treasury sanctions overview). Agencies would likely issue new watchlist, visa, and due-diligence directives to consular officers, banks, and law enforcement once any designations are finalized.

Local Impact: Bismarck and North Dakota

For Bismarck residents, the most immediate effects would be practical: longer visa screenings for visitors and students from countries where a designated chapter operates, as consular officers apply additional checks, according to standard State Department procedures for FTO cases (State Department: FTO process). International offices at the University of Mary and Bismarck State College typically await agency guidance before advising students; applicants and sponsors should monitor embassy notices and university updates for case-specific instructions.

Local banks and charities may see updated compliance alerts, with Know Your Customer reviews and screening lists refreshed to reflect any new designations, per Treasury expectations for regulated institutions (Treasury: Sanctions Compliance Guidance). Community leaders often emphasize that designations target specific foreign organizations—not American religious congregations or civic groups—and encourage residents to report any bias incidents to local authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (DOJ Civil Rights reporting portal).

Voices from All Sides: Critiques and Support

Supporters argue the order clarifies the path to act against violent affiliates while avoiding an overbroad, movement-wide designation. They point to statutory language that focuses on conduct: an FTO must be foreign and “engages in terrorist activity or terrorism” and threaten U.S. national security interests, according to the State Department’s criteria (State Department: FTO criteria). Officials in governments that already ban the Brotherhood, such as Egypt and the UAE, have previously contended that the group’s chapters provide ideological and logistical support to militants—claims Washington would now be obliged to test in the evidentiary record for any U.S. action.

Human rights and legal analysts warn that sweeping designations risk chilling legitimate political activity and ensnaring social-service networks unconnected to violence. The United Kingdom’s review, for example, concluded that while some Brotherhood members have supported violence in some contexts, a blanket terrorist designation was not justified—an assessment that illustrates the evidentiary and policy tightrope U.S. agencies must walk (UK Government review). Civil liberties groups have also criticized the reach of U.S. material-support laws, which can extend to nonviolent training or services tied to a designated group, highlighting the need for clear, narrow listings and public guidance (18 U.S.C. § 2339B).

Internationally, reactions are expected to split along familiar lines: governments that view the Brotherhood as a destabilizing force likely to welcome tougher U.S. action, and others to object on free-association and domestic political grounds, as seen in past debates summarized by CFR (CFR backgrounder). How Washington balances those reactions will shape security cooperation, aid, and mediation roles in a region where Brotherhood-linked actors sit inside parliaments, opposition movements, and civil society.

What Comes Next? Anticipated Developments

Designating a foreign organization requires a formal administrative record and interagency review, followed by notice to Congress at least seven days before publication in the Federal Register, according to the statutory process (State Department: FTO designation process). Organizations may seek judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; courts typically examine whether the State Department’s record meets the statutory standard and affords due process, per the INA framework and related case law.

Expect State, DHS, and Treasury to issue implementation guidance to consulates, carriers, and financial institutions if and when any chapter is actually listed. Locally, Bismarck-area universities and employers that sponsor visas should watch for consular updates affecting interviews and security clearances, and travelers with secondary-screening issues can use DHS’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Community groups can monitor official updates through agency bulletins and subscribe to alerts for sanctions changes via Treasury’s website (Treasury sanctions updates).

What to Watch

• Which specific chapters the State Department moves on first and how it frames the evidentiary record in Federal Register notices.

• The seven-day congressional notification windows for any designations and whether lawsuits are filed in the D.C. Circuit challenging the listings.

• Practical effects in North Dakota: visa processing times for students and workers, updated bank compliance screenings, and any guidance local institutions receive from federal partners.