First Amendment vs. terror lists: Muslim Brotherhood test for American democracy

WASHINGTON (MNTV) — President Donald Trump’s plan to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization has reignited a fundamental debate about how the West engages with democratic movements in the Muslim world.

The designation “will be done in the strongest and most powerful terms,” Trump told Just the News, with final paperwork currently being prepared.

The announcement follows Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s recent decision to label the Muslim Brotherhood, along with several U.S.-based Muslim civil-society groups including CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), as foreign terror organizations.

Analysts say the Texas action set the stage for Trump’s federal-level plan, transforming what began as a state controversy into a national reckoning about the balance between security and democratic freedoms.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly welcomed Trump’s decision, stating that the Muslim Brotherhood “endangers stability in the Middle East and beyond.”

Yet observers caution that this designation does far more than address security concerns—it fundamentally aligns American policy with authoritarian regimes that have systematically crushed democratic opposition.

From social movement to political force

Founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood emerged during a period of colonial rule, deep social inequality, and political paralysis.

Initially, the movement focused on education, charity, moral reform, and political accountability, quickly gaining popularity among ordinary citizens seeking dignity and representation in societies that offered neither.

Over the decades, the Brotherhood expanded its reach across the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia, including Jordan, Syria, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

The group’s activities included running schools, clinics, and social development programs in underserved communities—often filling gaps that governments deliberately left empty or were unable to address.

In some countries, Brotherhood affiliates participated in elections and gained seats in parliaments, showing an ability to adapt to local political realities.

Its non-monolithic nature allowed each branch to operate differently depending on national circumstances, demonstrating both flexibility and resilience despite repeated crackdowns by nervous autocrats who saw organized public participation as an existential threat.

The Brotherhood often became the only organized force capable of mobilizing ordinary people in contexts lacking democratic space, challenging monarchs, military rulers, and one-party states through civic engagement rather than violence.

Arab Spring: Democracy’s brief window

The Arab uprisings of 2011, widely known as the Arab Spring, opened the first meaningful political space in generations across the region. Citizens who had lived under decades of authoritarian rule suddenly demanded accountability, representation, and basic human dignity.

In Egypt, the Brotherhood quickly formed a political party and participated in democratic elections.

Mohamed Morsi won the presidency in 2012 through a process widely recognized as free and transparent, signaling the potential for peaceful political participation to produce real change. For a brief moment, it seemed possible that democratic transformation could take root in the Arab world’s most populous nation.

However, this democratic opening was devastatingly short-lived. In 2013, the Egyptian military removed Morsi from office, banned the Brotherhood, and launched a sweeping crackdown on the organization.

This included mass arrests, show trials, executions, and the violent dispersal of peaceful demonstrators during the Rabaa massacre, where hundreds—some estimates say over a thousand—were killed in a single day.

The crackdown marked a sharp reversal in Egypt’s democratic trajectory and highlighted the brutal reality: entrenched authoritarian power would not surrender simply because citizens voted for change.

It also exposed an uncomfortable truth about Western policy—democracy promotion rhetoric often evaporates when democratic outcomes challenge preferred allies or strategic interests.

Authoritarians export their playbook

Jordan restricted its Brotherhood-linked political party, while the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia went further by banning the organization entirely.

These Gulf monarchies then extended their campaign internationally, targeting U.S.-based Muslim civil-society organizations such as CAIR and the Muslim American Society (MAS), despite no credible evidence linking them to terrorism.

These actions reflect a broader struggle between democratic movements and authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world, where organized public participation is systematically suppressed.

For Gulf monarchies, the Brotherhood represents an ideological threat precisely because it demonstrates that Islamic values can coexist with—and even demand—democratic governance, electoral accountability, and citizen participation.

Now, Trump’s proposed federal designation follows this same precedent, importing the logic of autocratic regimes into American policy.

Texas has already taken the lead, with Governor Abbott’s designation specifically naming CAIR among groups labeled as terrorist organizations—a move that civil liberties advocates warn criminalizes constitutionally protected advocacy and community organizing.

America’s democratic credibility at stake

The controversy highlights a persistent tension in U.S. foreign policy: the gap between America’s stated commitment to democracy and its actual support for democratic movements, particularly in the Muslim world.

Throughout the Cold War and continuing into the present, Washington has frequently prioritized stability and strategic partnerships with authoritarian allies over supporting democratic transitions that might produce uncertain or inconvenient outcomes.

When Egyptians voted in free elections, the United States did not vigorously defend their choice. When the military staged a coup, American aid continued to flow.

The message sent to people across the region was unmistakable: democracy is praised in theory but abandoned in practice when it conflicts with other interests.

By echoing Gulf monarchies in labeling political opposition as terrorism, the Trump administration risks further eroding confidence in American civil liberties and weakening its moral authority to champion democratic movements abroad.

If the United States treats lawful Muslim civic organizations as terrorist entities, it validates the authoritarian playbook used to justify crushing dissent from Cairo to Riyadh.

Observers caution that labeling mainstream Muslim advocacy groups as terrorist organizations risks undermining First Amendment protections.

They argue that such designations could criminalize lawful civic engagement, weaken civil liberties for all Americans, and set a dangerous precedent: if Muslim organizations can be targeted today despite constitutional protections, other civil rights groups, activists, or minority communities could face similar designations tomorrow.

Defending democratic principles at home and abroad

Muslim Americans have consistently underscored the importance of upholding constitutional protections, including free speech, assembly, and political advocacy—not just for themselves, but as universal principles that should guide both domestic policy and international engagement.

They stress that U.S. policy should consistently support democratic principles both domestically and globally, serving as a model for governance rather than emulating autocratic regimes that suppress dissent. The First Amendment provides crucial safeguards for lawful political activism, including faith-informed advocacy, and these protections must be defended vigorously against efforts to erode them in the name of security.

It also means hoping that the world will adopt the democratic values enshrined in the First Amendment, and insisting that American foreign policy genuinely reflects these universal values rather than merely paying lip service to them while supporting authoritarians.

Designating the organization as terrorist would send a clear message: the United States stands with autocrats against democratic movements when those movements emerge from Muslim societies.