Are Regimes Linked to the Muslim Brotherhood Facing Collapse in 2027?

The European Parliament’s call for governments across the continent to examine the legal possibility of designating the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates as a terrorist organisation has raised questions about the group’s future, not only in Western countries but also in the Middle East, particularly the regimes aligned with political Islam.

On 13 January, the administration of US President Donald Trump officially designated Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon as terrorist organisations and imposed sanctions on them and their members. Similar measures are expected in other countries, while calls continue for the group to be designated a terrorist organisation throughout the United States.

A Comprehensive Designation in 2027

Dr Walid Phares, an adviser on foreign relations to US President Donald Trump during the 2016 election campaign, stated in a post on the social media platform X that “the full designation of the Muslim Brotherhood by the European Union and the Trump administration in 2027 will systematically and ultimately lead to the collapse of many Brotherhood-linked regimes in the Middle East”.

US Representative Nancy Mace, in a post on X, maintains that “the Muslim Brotherhood does not merely support terrorism; it inspires it”. She called for things to be named as they are and for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated for what it truly is: “They are terrorists.”

Mace added: “We introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act to designate the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation, target its activities through sanctions, asset freezes and travel bans, and activate law enforcement tools.”

The Economist magazine explains that “the Muslim Brotherhood is experiencing unprecedented division and weakness”, noting that “2025 was particularly harsh for the Muslim Brotherhood. Last November, Trump directed his administration to designate the group’s various branches as terrorist organisations. On 13 January, the US administration duly added the Egyptian and Jordanian branches to its list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, while the Lebanese branch was officially designated a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.”

Notably, according to the magazine, “in May, as part of a new US counterterrorism strategy, the Muslim Brotherhood was listed alongside Al-Qaeda and ISIS as a source of contemporary jihadist ideology. Jordan also banned the group entirely in April 2025 and has since worked to restrict its political wing, represented by the Islamic Action Front Party.”

 A Trojan Horse

And what about Europe? A report by researcher Jules Gomez published by the Middle East Forum states that “days ago, the European Parliament voted in favour of a historic resolution opposing Islamist infiltration”, explicitly naming the “Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated organisation, the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO)”.

Gomez argues that the European lawmakers who supported the resolution voted in favour of “identifying the phenomenon of Islamist infiltration and its networks, tightening oversight of EU funds to ensure that financing is not directed towards groups linked to political Islam, and warning that separatist tendencies, victimhood narratives, conspiracy theories, challenges to secularism and the use of religion to oppose gender equality may constitute indicators of Islamist influence”.

The same researcher draws attention to the European Parliament resolution’s warning that the Islamist current operates through an integrated system of associations, institutions and cultural, educational, religious, charitable, university and youth structures, as well as organisations concerned with combating discrimination or promoting social justice. The Muslim Brotherhood, he notes, is the most prominent example of these transnational Islamist networks.

According to Gomez, the resolution explains “how Islamist networks often adopt the language of fundamental rights, intercultural dialogue and opposition to racism and discrimination, while simultaneously promoting separatism, social pressure or challenges to democratic principles”. They use this approach as a “Trojan horse” to seek institutional legitimacy under the guise of protecting Muslim minorities.

In his report for the Middle East Forum, Jules Gomez also highlights the European Parliament’s warning about the Muslim Brotherhood’s appropriation of EU funds, particularly through participation in EU-funded projects, by entities such as FEMYSO, the European Network Against Racism, the East Forum, Islamic Relief Worldwide and Gaziantep University, despite their alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood or the political Islam movement.

The report also notes that Belgian legislator Sophie Wilmès described the Muslim Brotherhood as “a high-level, priority threat because of its capacity to generate anti-democratic behaviour, polarisation and violations of fundamental rights”, stressing that these were the conclusions of Belgian security and intelligence agencies.

On the question of the organisation’s unity and potential fragmentation, Jordanian researcher Mohammad Sabti wrote in an analysis published by the Hufryat platform: “The divergence in the Muslim Brotherhood’s positions on the Iran war confirms one fact: the group is no longer a single organisation, but rather a network of conflicting interests. While the Brotherhood in Yemen and Sudan sells its countries’ sovereignty to Iran in exchange for military survival, the Muslim Brotherhood in London and Istanbul seeks to preserve its funding and safe havens through muted rhetoric.”

Sabti argues that “the Iran war has revealed that the Brotherhood’s compass does not point towards the interests of Arab peoples or the security of the Gulf. Instead, it always points towards narrow organisational interests, even if this comes at the expense of Arab capitals and the blood of innocent people”.