Will Britain Follow Washington’s Lead? House of Lords Debates the Designation of the Muslim Brotherhood
The issue of the Muslim Brotherhood has returned to the forefront of political discussion in the United Kingdom, amid questions over whether London might follow Washington in designating some branches of the movement as terrorist organizations.
On Monday, the House of Lords in the British Parliament held an extensive debate on the government’s position regarding the document issued by the White House on November 24 about the Muslim Brotherhood.
On that day, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating procedures to designate certain branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations and global terrorist entities subject to specific sanctions.
Calls for designation
Conservative peer Dean Aaron Goodson asked the British government how it assessed that document and whether it intended to adopt a similar designation regarding the Muslim Brotherhood.
He noted that Parliament had, on several prior occasions, discussed particular organizations such as Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Polisario Front, in addition to far-right groups, only a few weeks earlier.
He argued that the matter of the Muslim Brotherhood is not merely an intelligence issue, but also a political one, tied to what he described as the group’s “sectarian agenda,” which the Trump administration believes is involved in terrorist activities.
He added that the issue is not limited to the United States, pointing out that all major European allies have produced reports on the Muslim Brotherhood, including France’s Interior Ministry last year, as well as the German federal government and its constitutional protection agencies.
Against this backdrop, Goodson wondered why the United Kingdom appears to be an outlier in not providing a comprehensive analysis of the threat posed by this organization domestically and internationally.
Responding, Minister of State at the Home Office Hanson of Flint (Labour Party) said the United Kingdom is not “an exception,” explaining that the U.S. report has not yet been completed, and that the designation issue remains under review.
He stressed that the government possesses multiple legislative and security tools to deal with any potential threat.
Other entities
During the session, Conservative peer Sayeeda Verma raised concerns about “Jamaat-e-Islami” in the United Kingdom, warning about its influence and its possible involvement in elections in Bangladesh.
She asked whether the minister would also look seriously at this organization in the UK, given its current influence over certain bodies and the possibility of its interference in Bangladeshi elections.
The minister replied that the government continuously reviews the status of all organizations, referring to a previous decision to ban “Palestine Action,” and confirming that such matters undergo ongoing assessment.
The Brotherhood risk
Independent peer Walney also asked whether the government recognizes the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and related organizations, particularly what he described as attempts to undermine democratic institutions.
Flint said there is a wide range of legal powers to counter extremism, including regulating charities, monitoring the media, education and immigration, as well as enforcing laws related to incitement to terrorism and public order.
The discussion also touched on the effectiveness of bans themselves, noting that extremist groups often change names and re-emerge in different forms.
The issue of monitoring charities connected to the Brotherhood was also raised. The minister said the Charity Commission continues to follow this file closely and is the body authorized to decide on the legal status of such organizations.
At the close of the debate, Hanson of Flint reiterated that the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood remains under review, and that any potential decision will be taken in the interest of the United Kingdom, in coordination with European partners and the United States, while refraining from commenting on sensitive security details at this stage.
