The bill directs the Secretary of State to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189). The text is short and prescriptive: it contains a short title and a single operative provision requiring the Secretary to list the named entity as an FTO.
That mandatory directive would trigger a suite of statutory effects that flow from an FTO listing in federal law — most notably the criminal prohibition on providing material support, immigration inadmissibility and removal consequences for members or affiliates, and heightened enforcement and compliance activity by federal agencies and private actors. The bill does not create new penalties or new authorities beyond the existing statutory framework; it orders the executive branch to apply an established tool to a specific organization.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill uses mandatory language — “shall designate” — to require the Secretary of State to add the Muslim Brotherhood to the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list under INA section 219 (8 U.S.C. 1189). It does not amend other statutes or create new criminal offenses; it instructs the executive to invoke an existing statutory mechanism.
Who It Affects
The directive directly affects the State Department (which must record and publish the designation) and other federal agencies that enforce FTO consequences (Justice, DHS, Treasury). It also touches U.S. persons and entities that interact with the group or its affiliates, and noncitizens whose admissibility or removability may hinge on association or support.
Why It Matters
Congress is using statutory language to convert a policy determination into an obligation, removing the normal executive discretion and process around FTO listings. Because an FTO label imports automatic statutory consequences elsewhere in federal law, the bill would produce immediate legal and practical effects without creating new criminal statutes or specifying additional sanctions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is two sentences long in substance: a short title and a command that the Secretary of State designate the named organization as a foreign terrorist organization under the cited provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That statutory cross‑reference matters because an FTO listing under section 219 carries mechanisms already written into federal law; the bill relies on those pre‑existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones.
In practice, an FTO designation functions as a legal trigger. Under federal criminal law, providing material support or resources to an organization that the Secretary has designated as an FTO is a federal crime (see 18 U.S.C. 2339B); administratively, designation supplies statutory grounds for inadmissibility and removal for certain noncitizens and can inform investigative and prosecutorial priorities.
The bill does not itself define membership, affiliation, or what constitutes ‘‘support,’’ so those legal questions would continue to be resolved under existing statutes and case law.Implementation would be an administrative act by the Department of State: the Secretary would place the organization on the State Department’s FTO list and take the routine steps associated with designation (publication, notice to other agencies). The statute is silent about timing, scope for identifying affiliates, or coordination with Treasury’s sanctions regime, so follow‑on actions — asset blocking, OFAC listings, or targeted sanctions — would depend on separate authorities and interagency decisions.The bill’s form — a direct statutory instruction naming a single organization — alters the usual policy posture.
Typically, the department runs a fact‑finding and interagency review before listing an entity; this measure substitutes a congressional command for that discretion and thereby concentrates legal effect in one sentence of statute. That concentration shifts downstream burdens to law enforcement, immigration authorities, financial institutions, and civil society groups that monitor compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill’s single operative clause requires the Secretary of State to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization under INA section 219 (8 U.S.C. 1189).
The text uses mandatory language — “shall designate” — meaning the statute itself imposes the obligation rather than directing the Secretary to consider or review the group under the usual discretionary process. , An FTO listing under existing federal law triggers criminal prohibitions on providing material support or resources (18 U.S.C. 2339B) and creates immigration consequences: inadmissibility and potential removability for certain noncitizens tied to the organization. , The bill does not define ‘‘Muslim Brotherhood,’’ ‘‘member,’’ ‘‘affiliate,’’ or set any temporal, geographic, or evidentiary thresholds for who counts as an associated person or entity; those determinations would proceed under existing statutory definitions and administrative practice. , The measure orders a designation only; it does not itself impose Treasury/OFAC sanctions, create new penalties, appropriate funds, or specify an implementation timeline — any additional enforcement or financial measures would come from other authorities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section provides the Act’s name, the ‘‘Muslim Brotherhood Is a Terrorist Organization Act of 2025.’’ It has no substantive legal effect; its purpose is to label the statute for reference and does not modify the substance or scope of the operative directive.
Mandatory FTO designation
Section 2 is the operative provision and contains a one‑sentence command: the Secretary of State shall designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189). That wording replaces the usual discretionary or process‑driven language with a statutory mandate, obligating the State Department to take the administrative steps necessary to enter the entity on the FTO list and to give notice consistent with the department’s procedures.
Reference to INA section 219 (8 U.S.C. 1189) and downstream effects
By prescribing a designation pursuant to section 219, the bill ties itself to the existing legal consequences that flow from that statutory regime. Practically, agencies that enforce material‑support laws, immigration exclusions, and asset or financial controls will treat the listing as the predicate for action under their separate statutory authorities. The provision is silent on how affiliates are identified and does not instruct other agencies to take complementary steps such as OFAC listings or targeted sanctions; those are governed by different statutes and administrative processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal prosecutors and investigators — a formal FTO listing provides a clear statutory predicate for material‑support investigations and can make prosecutions and intelligence sharing more straightforward.
- Immigration and border enforcement agencies — DHS and immigration adjudicators receive a statutory ground (tied to an FTO label) that may simplify inadmissibility or removal determinations for applicants and arrivals linked to the listed organization.
- Advocates and victims seeking restrictions on the organization’s fundraising and operations — an official designation can aid civil and administrative efforts to freeze assets, curb international fundraising funnels, and restrict U.S.-based assistance pathways.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Department and diplomatic apparatus — the department must execute the designation and manage the diplomatic, consular, and interagency consequences, including potential diplomatic fallout in countries where the organization operates.
- U.S.-based nonprofits, charities, universities, and researchers with historical ties or engagement with affiliates — they face increased compliance burdens and legal risk under material‑support statutes and must reassess programs, funding relationships, and collaborations.
- Financial institutions and compliance functions — banks and payment processors will need to update screening and reporting for customers and transactions linked to the listed organization or its affiliates, raising onboarding and monitoring costs.
- Noncitizens with past association or support — individuals who publicly or privately associated with the organization may face inadmissibility or removal under existing immigration grounds, even where the statute does not create new criminal liability for mere membership.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between legal clarity for enforcement and the risks of hardline, one‑size‑fits‑all policy imposed by statute: forcing an FTO designation simplifies prosecution and immigration enforcement but sacrifices executive flexibility and raises the chance of collateral harm to legitimate humanitarian, academic, and civil‑society activity — a trade‑off with no purely legal fix and material foreign‑policy consequences.
The bill crystallizes a number of implementation and legal questions by turning what is normally an executive determination into a straight statutory command. It does not supply definitions, thresholds, or procedures for identifying affiliates or distinguishing political activity from support that would give prosecutors or immigration adjudicators clearer lines to follow.
That omission raises practical uncertainty for judges, investigators, and compliance officers who must apply broad existing statutes (like the material‑support statute) to specific facts.
Another tension is administrative and interagency: an FTO listing triggers effects across Justice, DHS, Treasury, and the intelligence community, but this bill does not mandate coordination, timelines, or accompanying sanctions. Treasury’s asset‑blocking and OFAC sanctions generally require separate action; absent those, an FTO label still creates powerful criminal and immigration tools but may not immediately freeze assets or disrupt international financial networks unless other agencies act.
Finally, the statute’s narrow focus on one named organization creates questions about daylighting policy decisions in law rather than through the executive’s classified and diplomatic channels, which could produce litigation over procedural and evidentiary adequacy and complicate the United States’ diplomatic posture where engagement with affiliates has been part of broader foreign policy strategies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.