Center for Security Policy Founder talks about the Muslim Brotherhood’s role as an Over-arching Terrorist Organization
Dan Ball’s interview with Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, explored the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in the United States and its broader implications for national security. Gaffney, drawing from years of research and policy work, argued that the Brotherhood’s presence extends beyond foreign policy concerns and has taken root within the U.S. itself, shaping discourse, institutions, and even policy decisions in ways that most Americans remain unaware of.
Gaffney began by outlining the Muslim Brotherhood’s origins, emphasizing that it is not simply a religious or cultural movement but a political one with a strategic agenda. Established in Egypt in the early 20th century, the Brotherhood has long sought to advance the cause of political Islam, with its ultimate goal being the establishment of a global caliphate. While that objective may sound distant or abstract to the average American, Gaffney highlighted how the Brotherhood operates incrementally, embedding itself in societies and slowly influencing political, cultural, and legal frameworks.
Within the United States, he explained, the Brotherhood has taken a more subtle and adaptive approach. Rather than overtly campaigning for radical objectives, the organization builds influence through front groups, alliances with institutions, and lobbying efforts designed to normalize its presence. According to Gaffney, this strategy involves deliberately presenting itself as a moderate or mainstream Muslim voice, while masking the more radical agenda that drives its long-term ambitions. This dual-track approach has allowed it to gain credibility with policymakers, universities, media outlets, and even elements of government.
Gaffney pointed to the Brotherhood’s use of what he described as “civilization jihad”—a nonviolent but systematic effort to undermine American society from within. Unlike terrorism, which uses immediate violence to achieve political ends, this strategy relies on infiltration, persuasion, and manipulation. By embedding operatives and sympathetic voices in civic organizations, schools, and government positions, the Brotherhood can influence policy debates and shape the national conversation about Islam, terrorism, and security in ways favorable to its cause.
A key part of the Brotherhood’s U.S. presence, Gaffney noted, is its network of organizations that often appear to be independent advocacy groups but are in fact interlinked under the Brotherhood’s umbrella. These groups promote messaging that discourages scrutiny of Islamist movements, while also framing criticism as bigotry or Islamophobia. The effect is to chill debate, silence opposition, and make it politically costly for leaders or institutions to question the Brotherhood’s role. Over time, this erodes resistance to its agenda and creates space for further influence.
Gaffney: Muslim Brotherhood IS the Umbrella that Protects all
Gaffney also stressed that the Brotherhood’s activities in the U.S. cannot be separated from its global operations. The group is active in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, and its American branches serve both as a support network and as a testing ground for strategies that can be replicated elsewhere. U.S.-based organizations raise funds, shape narratives, and provide political cover for their counterparts abroad. The international scope of the Brotherhood means that its work in America has ripple effects across geopolitics, including U.S. relations with countries like Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar where the Brotherhood has varying degrees of support and protection.
An area of particular concern, according to Gaffney, is the Brotherhood’s influence on American policymaking. By cultivating relationships with officials and opinion leaders, the group has managed to create a perception of legitimacy that allows it access to power. In some cases, this has led to policies that overlook or downplay Islamist threats, mischaracterize the nature of terrorism, or fail to address the ideological roots of extremism. Gaffney argued that such blind spots are not accidental but the direct result of successful lobbying and narrative-shaping efforts by Brotherhood-linked entities.
Throughout the discussion, Gaffney underscored that this is not a matter of isolated organizations operating independently, but rather a coordinated campaign with clear long-term objectives. He suggested that the Brotherhood’s patient, disciplined approach has allowed it to achieve far more within the U.S. than many realize, precisely because it avoids the overt tactics of violence that draw public alarm. By keeping its activities below the radar, the Brotherhood has been able to establish a level of influence that would have been unthinkable had it pursued a more confrontational strategy.
The conversation closed with Gaffney emphasizing the stakes for the United States. If left unaddressed, the Brotherhood’s efforts could continue to shape policy and society in ways that undermine constitutional freedoms and national security. He urged greater public awareness of the threat, stronger scrutiny of organizations tied to the Brotherhood, and a recognition that ideological warfare can be just as dangerous as kinetic attacks. The challenge, he noted, is that Americans are often more comfortable confronting visible enemies than subtle ones, but the long-term danger posed by the Brotherhood’s influence is significant and must not be ignored.
