Order Michael Finch’s new book, A Time to Stand: HERE. Prof. Jason Hill calls it “an aesthetic and political tour de force.”
For decades, the United States has operated under a dangerous illusion — that the Muslim Brotherhood, with its polished rhetoric and carefully curated “moderate” façade, is somehow distinct from the extremist ideologies that have destabilized entire regions. This assumption has survived not because it is supported by intelligence assessments, but because it is convenient. It allows policymakers to pretend that the Brotherhood is a “reformist” alternative to jihadism rather than its ideological incubator.
But the tide is turning. The latest European intelligence reports — from France, Belgium, and an unprecedented EU briefing presented on November 20th — have shattered this façade. On November 23rd, more than 70 international experts and human rights activists gathered at The Hague, in front of the International Criminal Court, issuing a simple and urgent message: the Muslim Brotherhood is not a social movement or a civil society actor. It is a global destabilization network — and the West can no longer afford to ignore it.
For Washington, this moment should be a wake-up call. America is not immune. And the Brotherhood’s threat to U.S. national security is neither abstract nor distant — it is structural, ideological, and embedded.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s founding doctrine is unambiguous: replace democratic governance with an Islamic political order, gradually, through patient infiltration. Its own documents — including the infamous 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum” uncovered during the Holy Land Foundation trial — describe its mission inside America as a “civilizational-jihadist process” aimed at destroying Western civilization from within.
This is not commentary. This is evidence submitted in a U.S. federal court. And yet, despite this, the Brotherhood has cultivated influence in American political, academic, and community institutions by promoting itself as a moderate voice — a strategy explicitly highlighted by former Dutch politician Henry Van Bommel at The Hague, who noted that the movement’s long-term goal is “to eliminate Western civilization from within through ideological influence and political engagement.”
To American policymakers, this language should not sound foreign. It echoes precisely what U.S. counterterrorism officials have been warning for years: the Brotherhood is a pipeline, not an endpoint. It produces the ideological scaffolding upon which more violent actors — from al-Qaeda to ISIS to Hamas — build.
America today faces a triple vulnerability. First, the Brotherhood’s unparalleled network of front groups allows it to influence local elections, interfaith coalitions, university campuses, and diaspora communities while remaining legally untouchable. Unlike overt extremist organizations, the Brotherhood does not recruit bomb-makers; it recruits influencers, advisors, donors, and political operatives. Its danger lies not in the streets, but in the conference rooms.
Second, the Brotherhood excels at weaponizing democratic openness. Dr. Julio Levit Koldorf captured this perfectly in The Hague: Western progressives, unaware of the movement’s true aims, “blindly enable a totalitarian ideology that opposes democracy, human rights, gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights and secular governance.”
America’s own discourse — from DEI departments to activist networks — has been infiltrated by narratives that mirror Brotherhood messaging, especially regarding Israel, the Middle East, and the legitimacy of liberal norms.
Third, the Brotherhood provides ideological cover for Islamist extremism that eventually targets America directly. Every U.S.-designated terrorist organization tied to political Islam — from Hamas to certain al-Qaeda branches — traces its ideological roots to the Brotherhood’s teachings. While the Brotherhood may refrain from operational violence, it supplies the worldview that legitimizes it.
Critically, the threat is not to American Muslims. It is to American democracy. As Ramon Rahangmetan noted in his speech: “This is not a speech about Islam or Muslim communities. It is about a political movement identified by European intelligence agencies as a long-term ideological threat to democratic cohesion.”
The Brotherhood thrives on conflation — insisting that criticism of its political ideology is an attack on Islam itself. This manipulation has allowed the organization to shield itself behind American pluralism, exploiting a uniquely tolerant society to advance an intolerant agenda.
America cannot afford to remain passive. The U.S. already has legal grounds for action. Countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Austria have designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist movement. Washington has ample evidence to conduct its own review, and recent intelligence from Europe underscores that the threat is not limited to the Middle East — it is transnational.
The real question is no longer whether the Brotherhood is dangerous, but whether America has the political will to treat it as such. The stakes could not be higher. A movement committed to the erosion of democratic systems cannot be allowed to operate freely within them. And a country that fails to identify ideological subversion is destined to be shaped by it.
The Brotherhood is testing the resilience of American society. Washington must decide whether it will respond with clarity — or with denial. America cannot confront global extremism while giving shelter to its architects.
