A closed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Amman, Jordan, which banned the group (Image: Getty)

Would banning the Muslim Brotherhood be enough to curb its influence? This is a question that is weighing on Parliamentarians, former ministers and experts. The issue was at the heart of TRENDS’ sixth annual Political Islam Forum, which talked about the networks linked to political Islam, their funding and the tools they use to maintain a presence across Europe.

The debate comes amid growing political pressure on the British government. Opposition groups are pushing the government to do more about the impact of Muslim Brotherhood activities on social cohesion. There are clear questions to be answered but the government has little more than trite rote responses about monitoring all potential extremist groups.

The evolution of political Islam, particularly its relationship with violent extremism, is something that Europe is waking up to. I believe that there needs to be a more serious discussion in the UK about possible legislative responses and cooperation between allies.

Of course, there is a fundamental distinction that needs to be maintained: Islam and Islamism are not the same. The former belongs to the religious, spiritual and cultural sphere; the latter uses religion to pursue political power and influence. The distinction is necessary to prevent an ideological movement from presenting itself as the representative of European Muslims and indoctrinating them into extremism.

A core point still remains though. Individuals and institutions associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam have operated in the UK for decades thanks to a worrying lack of interest or care from successive governments. There are blind spots in the charity and education sectors that must be pointed out and closed, with tighter scrutiny of funding and tax privileges granted to charities.

If we do ban the Brotherhood, a move which has growing support in Westminster, what happens next? The Brotherhood has deep hooks into Britain. What happens after a ban? Proscribing an organisation may not be enough if the tools through which its ideas are disseminated remain available. It has a network of non-affiliated organisations, former staff and sympathisers, an infrastructure and funding system that doesn’t belong to one simple organisational structure.

How would Britain stop the circulation of its messaging in an age of artificial intelligence, which can dramatically increase the production and circulation of content.

We must then turn to prevention. Education, critical thinking and digital literacy are vital skills to prevent people being sucked into propaganda networks and false narratives. Muslims themselves are among the principal victims of extremism – either through violence or through deliberate social isolation by those grooming them.

The Global Brotherhood Power Index 2025 provided a broader picture of the Brotherhood’s global power. Europe accounts for 17% of the Brotherhood, behind the Americas at 24.8%, Asia at 22.5% and Africa at 20.2%. Hamad Al Hosani, a TRENDS researcher, described flexible structures capable of operating through community institutions.

The central question therefore remains the one posed at the outset – would a ban be enough? Proscription can target an organisation, but funding, affiliated groups, education and new digital tools make it far harder to curb the wider influence of political Islam.

There Is Growing Support at Westminster for Banning the Muslim Brotherhood

Pressure is growing in Westminster for the British government to consider banning the Muslim Brotherhood, amid renewed debate about political Islam, extremist networks and the way organisations linked to the movement operate in Britain.

The issue was discussed at a recent political forum in the House of Lords, where parliamentarians, former ministers and counter-extremism specialists debated whether proscription would be an effective response.

But despite the increasingly vocal calls for action, the Muslim Brotherhood has not been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom.

The question facing ministers is therefore not simply whether there is political support for a ban, but whether the organisation meets the legal test required under British terrorism legislation.

Westminster debate puts the Brotherhood back under the spotlight

The latest debate took place at the sixth annual TRENDS Forum on Political Islam in Westminster.

Participants discussed the Muslim Brotherhood’s alleged networks, sources of funding, influence through civil-society organisations and educational institutions, and its use of digital platforms.

Several British politicians called for stronger action.

Former Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski urged the Home Office to respond to parliamentary demands for the organisation to be banned and designated as a terrorist organisation. Lord Walney also argued for greater scrutiny of networks that, in his view, can operate through charities and other institutions.

Former deputy prime minister Sir Oliver Dowden was among the speakers addressing the wider issue of the Brotherhood and extremism.

The event also saw the launch of a “Ban the Brotherhood” campaign by counter-extremism specialists Tom Wilson and Dr Alan Mendoza.

The presence of MPs and peers at the event illustrates that the issue has a constituency in Westminster. It does not, however, demonstrate that Parliament has agreed to proscribe the organisation.

What would a ban actually mean?

In Britain, describing an organisation as “banned” can conceal an important legal distinction.

The relevant mechanism is proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000.

According to the Home Office, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation when they reasonably believe it is concerned in terrorism and that proscription would be proportionate.

The legislation includes organisations that commit or participate in terrorism, prepare for terrorism, promote or encourage terrorism, or are otherwise concerned in terrorism.

Once an organisation is proscribed, membership, inviting support and certain forms of fundraising can become criminal offences.

That means a political decision to investigate or debate the Brotherhood is not equivalent to a decision to ban it.

The government would need to satisfy the statutory requirements before proscription could take place.

The government’s position remains cautious

Official parliamentary answers show that ministers have so far avoided confirming whether the Muslim Brotherhood is under consideration for proscription.

In December 2025, Home Office minister Lord Hanson said the government does not comment on intelligence and security matters, including whether a particular organisation is being considered for proscription.

He reiterated the legal test: the Home Secretary must have a reasonable belief that an organisation is currently concerned in terrorism, and proscription must be necessary and proportionate.

That position remains important because political criticism alone does not establish that the legal threshold has been met.

The government’s most recent parliamentary responses continue to emphasise monitoring rather than announcing a decision to proscribe the Brotherhood.

In an answer published on 1 September 2026, ministers said the Home Office oversees assessment of the extremist threat landscape and shares information with other departments. The government said that where individuals or groups cross a legal threshold, action will be taken to prevent harm.

Why the debate is becoming more complicated

One of the central arguments made by supporters of proscription is that the Brotherhood may not operate like a conventional organisation with a single visible structure.

The recent Westminster forum heard claims that networks associated with political Islam can operate through charities, educational organisations, media, community institutions and online platforms.

Supporters of a ban therefore argue that simply targeting one organisation might not address the wider infrastructure they associate with the movement.

That concern was also reflected in the discussion about what would happen after a hypothetical proscription.

The organisers of the Westminster forum acknowledged that a ban alone might not eliminate networks, funding mechanisms or ideological material that could continue through separate organisations.

This creates a significant policy question: if Britain did proscribe the Brotherhood, how would authorities distinguish between genuine organisational activity and ordinary religious, charitable or political activity that has no connection to terrorism?

Islam and Islamism are not the same thing

Another issue repeatedly emphasised during the debate is the distinction between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political ideology.

That distinction is particularly important in any discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood because the organisation has historically presented itself through an Islamic political framework, while Britain’s Muslim population is extremely diverse.

Speakers at the Westminster event explicitly argued that the Brotherhood should not be treated as synonymous with Muslims generally.

The event’s organisers also stressed the importance of avoiding collective stigmatisation of Muslim communities.

That distinction is significant for both security policy and social cohesion.

A government could investigate or restrict a particular organisation based on evidence without treating an entire religious community as responsible for the actions or ideology of that organisation.

Britain’s approach differs from several other countries

The debate has also been influenced by decisions taken overseas.

The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and Austria have all taken measures against the Muslim Brotherhood or organisations associated with it, although the precise legal arrangements differ between countries.

Jordan, for example, moved to ban the organisation in 2025.

In the United States, the Trump administration also began processes concerning particular Muslim Brotherhood branches, although American designations and British proscription operate under different legal systems.

The fact that other governments have acted is frequently cited by advocates of British action.

But foreign decisions do not automatically establish the evidence required under UK law.

The British government must apply its own statutory framework and make its own assessment of necessity and proportionality.

The political dimension

The debate also has a broader political context.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage announced in 2025 that his party would seek to ban the Muslim Brotherhood if it entered government.

The issue has subsequently attracted interest from politicians outside Reform as well.

Recent parliamentary questions demonstrate that MPs continue to press ministers for information about the government’s assessment of organisations associated with political Islam.

In September, Conservative MP Katie Lam questioned ministers about why the government had previously identified several organisations in discussions about engagement and fundamental values.

The Home Office responded that the government normally avoids commenting on individual organisations but may do so when it considers it in the public interest. It also said it carries out due diligence before engaging with organisations or individuals.

This suggests that Westminster’s debate extends beyond the question of formal proscription.

It includes questions about which organisations ministers should engage with, which charities should receive public trust, how funding should be scrutinised and how extremist threats should be assessed.

Would proscription solve the problem?

That remains one of the biggest unresolved questions.

Supporters argue that a ban could give law-enforcement and security agencies additional powers and make it harder for an organisation deemed to meet the terrorism threshold to operate openly.

Critics or sceptics can point to the possibility that a movement could adapt its structures, change names or operate through organisations that are legally separate.

The recent Westminster forum itself raised this problem.

If the Brotherhood’s influence is distributed across informal networks, charities, former members and online communities, banning the central organisation might not eliminate every channel through which its ideas are communicated.

There is also a legal challenge in drawing boundaries.

Britain protects freedom of religion, freedom of association and political expression. Those rights do not provide immunity for terrorism, but they mean that restrictions must operate within the law and be proportionate.

The government’s next decision could therefore be significant

For ministers, the issue presents several competing considerations.

On one side are politicians and counter-extremism specialists who argue that the government should take a tougher approach towards the Muslim Brotherhood and organisations they believe are connected to its ideology.

On the other is the existing legal framework, which requires evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism and that proscription is proportionate.

There is also the practical question of what happens after a ban.

Even supporters of proscription acknowledge that legislation would need to be accompanied by scrutiny of funding, charities, education, online activity and international networks if the objective were to reduce the broader influence of extremist organisations.

For the moment, therefore, the story is one of growing political pressure rather than an announced government ban.

The Muslim Brotherhood remains legal in Britain, and ministers have not publicly confirmed that proscription is imminent.

What has changed is the intensity of the Westminster discussion.

With MPs, peers and counter-extremism experts increasingly debating whether existing measures are sufficient, the government is likely to face continued questions about how it assesses Brotherhood-linked networks and whether the current legal framework provides adequate tools.

Ultimately, any decision will depend not simply on political pressure but on evidence, the statutory terrorism test and the government’s assessment of whether proscription would be necessary and proportionate.

That distinction will remain crucial as Westminster’s debate develops.