Why It Matters

The Trump administration's designation of three Muslim Brotherhood chapters as terrorist organizations found a legislative echo on Aug. 5, when Senate Republicans held a hearing on the organization's alleged influence operations in the United States. Democrats' complete absence underscored deep partisan divisions over how Congress should approach the issue.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) characterized the Democratic boycott as "an embarrassment and a disservice to the thousands of American victims of the Muslim Brotherhood," while Democrats accused Republicans of using the proceeding to target Muslims broadly.

The Big Picture

The hearing followed an executive branch shift that unfolded over several months. In November, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the State and Treasury departments to consider whether certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters should be designated as terrorist organizations. On Jan. 13, the administration took action against the Lebanese, Jordanian, and Egyptian chapters.

The State Department designated the Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, while the Treasury Department designated the Egyptian and Jordanian branches as Specially Designated Global Terrorists for providing material support to Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood issue has recurred across multiple congressional sessions. Lawmakers have repeatedly introduced legislation seeking to designate the organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In the current Congress, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced H.R. 3883, the Muslim Brotherhood Is a Terrorist Organization Act, which would require the secretary of State to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The measure remains at the introduced stage after being referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The Trump administration's chapter-by-chapter approach represented a different strategy, targeting specific branches rather than designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole.

What They're Saying

All five Democratic members of the subcommittee boycotted the hearing. In a joint statement, they accused Republicans of staging "a political creepshow" designed to attack Muslims broadly. The Democratic members stated: "Scapegoating Muslims may be a Texas Republican strategist's idea of 'solid gold' to whip up their voters, but Democrats have no intention of indulging this political creepshow, particularly after the recent violence targeting places of faith."

Cruz, the only Republican subcommittee member present, proceeded with three witnesses: Lara Burns of George Washington University's Program on Extremism, Arielle F. Klepach of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, and Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy.

Burns, a retired FBI special agent with more than 23 years of experience in terrorism investigations, testified about evidence uncovered in FBI investigations and what she described as a long-term Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure operating inside the United States. Burns worked on the Justice Department's Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing prosecution.

Klepach, in her testimony, called a proposed North Texas development project the "American version" of Islamist separatism. The National Jewish Advocacy Center, where she serves as senior litigation counsel, framed the hearing as addressing a national security concern.

Shideler's organization, the Center for Security Policy, has advocated for designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. All three witnesses represented organizations focused on extremism, national security, legal advocacy, or counterterrorism, leaving no witness at the hearing to present the Democrats' objections or another opposing perspective.

Political Stakes

The administration has targeted specific foreign Muslim Brotherhood chapters, while Cruz and witnesses advocated greater scrutiny of domestic organizations they allege have connections to the Brotherhood. No formal subpoenas or referrals regarding Muslim Brotherhood influence operations have been publicly announced.

For Democrats, the boycott reflected their position that participating would lend legitimacy to what they viewed as a discriminatory proceeding.

For witnesses and advocacy groups supporting the hearing, the proceeding advanced a long-standing push for additional action against organizations they allege are connected to the Brotherhood. The Combat Antisemitism Movement argued that the Democratic boycott left a national security issue unaddressed.

The Other Side

Critics pointed to the hearing's one-sided composition. Democrats' joint statement referenced "recent violence targeting places of faith" and argued the proceeding exemplified a broader political strategy targeting Muslims. They also criticized what they described as the growing use of anti-Islamic rhetoric in Republicans' midterm campaign messaging.

The Trump administration's approach stopped short of a blanket designation of the global Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, the White House directed federal agencies to assess particular chapters. The resulting January actions focused on Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Notably, the three chapters did not receive identical designations: the Lebanese branch received both Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist designations, while the Egyptian and Jordanian branches were designated Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

What's Next

The hearing was completed with no follow-up hearing immediately scheduled. No formal legislative action resulting from the proceeding has been announced.

Proponents of further action have advocated for designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and investigating alleged Brotherhood influence within U.S. institutions. H.R. 3883 would require the secretary of State to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as an FTO, but the bill has not advanced beyond its referral to the House Judiciary Committee.

The Trump administration has made countering certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters part of its counterterrorism policy. The State Department described the January designations as a first step in support of the president's commitment to counter Muslim Brotherhood chapters that the administration says threaten the United States.

The Bottom Line

The hearing illustrated how the Muslim Brotherhood has become a partisan flashpoint in Congress, with Republicans pressing for greater scrutiny of alleged influence operations in the United States and Democrats refusing to participate in a proceeding they characterized as discriminatory political theater.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article