Jordan’s ban on the Muslim Brotherhood is no surprise but comes against a dangerous backdrop

The move to undermine the organization’s growing appeal has precedent but is risky amid heightened tensions over Gaza and uncertain US policy.

Expert comment Published 2 May 2025 4 minute READ

Dr Neil Quilliam

Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme

Jordan’s Ministry of Interior formally outlawed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood on 23 April, declaring both membership of the organization and promotion of its ideology illegal.

Soon after, security forces raided premises associated with the group, acting in line with the new directive. The Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, has not been officially banned, though the authorities also carried out raids on its offices.

While the government’s move against the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily a domestic issue and has historical precedent, its decision seems carefully calibrated against a difficult and uncertain international backdrop.

The Muslim Brotherhood had already been formally dissolved by Jordan’s Court of Cassation in 2020, though few steps were taken to implement the measure. The government’s latest decision is more consequential: it is an effort to dismantle the movement’s residual influence in the kingdom and undermine its growing appeal among a population incensed by Israel’s war in Gaza.

Alleged plot against the kingdom

The move comes after the government revealed an alleged plot threatening national security, said to have been orchestrated by a group with close links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In confessions aired on state television, several of the accused claimed that they had been recruited by the Muslim Brotherhood, though the organization denies any involvement. According to government officials, the plot was directed by a cell leader operating out of Lebanon and had involved manufacturing weapons and training militants with the intent of attacking targets in Jordan.

The move seems carefully calibrated and intended to stem rising popular support for the movement as the kingdom navigates a difficult regional backdrop.

The government’s decision to clamp down on the Muslim Brotherhood marks another significant, if not wholly unexpected, episode in Jordan’s complicated relationship with political Islam. It highlights the kingdom’s growing unease with any form of Islamist mobilisation, especially at a time of regional change and uncertainty associated with US policy under President Trump.

It also signals the further tightening of Jordan’s political environment. While the decision was motivated by domestic considerations, it will also likely be appreciated by the country’s principal Gulf allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who have historically viewed the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat.

From loyal opposition to banned group

Historically, the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan has functioned as a loyal opposition rather than a revolutionary force, eschewing violence and working within political institutions.

In the past, the monarchy has preferred to contain and co-opt the Muslim Brotherhood rather than eradicate it altogether, fearing that radical groups might fill the vacuum. Its deep roots in civil society – through charities, professional associations, and welfare provision – have long made it an indispensable, if sometimes inconvenient, partner.

Historically, the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan has functioned as a loyal opposition rather than a revolutionary force.

However, the government has previously taken action to limit the Muslim Brotherhood’s ability to mobilize political support. This has often coincided with periods of high regional tension that risk exacerbating domestic divisions in the kingdom. For example, the authorities have clamped down on the organization during previous conflicts between Israel and Palestinians or the war in Iraq.

In 2016, authorities shuttered the Brotherhood’s headquarters, seized its assets, and transferred its properties to the Muslim Brotherhood Society (MBS) – a government-sanctioned offshoot comprised largely of East Bank Jordanians willing to renounce regional ties and focus solely on domestic issues. While the MBS was tolerated, the Muslim Brotherhood faced exclusion, which culminated in its legal dissolution four years later.

Nevertheless, the IAF remained a political force and was able to navigate through a narrowing political space by operating as a legally distinct party, even though its ideological and organizational links to the Brotherhood remained evident. In fact, it scored a major success in parliamentary elections in September 2024, more than doubling its share of seats to win 31 out of 138 seats and become the largest bloc in parliament.

The IAF’s success caused concern among government officials and the security services. The result suggested the public mood was not only sympathetic towards Palestinians in Gaza but also supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood and, by association, Hamas. Members of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood had openly made claims of support for Hamas following the events of 7 October 2023 and in light of Israel’s response.

Many Jordanians at the time told me they believed that the government would annul or overturn the election result and expressed surprise that it refrained from doing so. They attributed the government’s restraint to a wariness of appearing anti-democratic to international partners.

Uncertain US policy

Last month’s foiled attack appears to have provided the government with an opportunity to close down the Muslim Brotherhood for good. The move seems carefully calibrated and intended to stem rising popular support for the movement as the kingdom navigates a difficult regional backdrop.

President Trump’s suggested ‘plan’ to depopulate Gaza and transfer its more than 2 million people to Egypt and Jordan not only poses an existential threat to the kingdom, but has played into the hands of pro-Palestinian sentiment in Jordan. The Muslim Brotherhood, whose sympathies with Hamas have been bolstered by the war, has organized protests in response.

At the same time, President Trump had questioned the scale of Washington’s financial support for Jordan, which relies heavily on US aid, exposing the kingdom’s critical vulnerability. King Abdullah has since secured reassurances that the bulk of its annual $1.45 billion US package, spanning military assistance and direct budgetary support, will remain intact.

Despite those reassurances, both US policy positions risk compromising the stability and security of the state of Jordan. Together, they help explain why the government has seized the opportunity of the alleged attack plot to portray the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to national security and moved to prevent it from tapping into popular anger and mobilising on the streets.

The risks of dissolving parliament

For the time being, however, it appears that the IAF has escaped the ban and will continue to provide an avenue for political expression. Targeting the party would have had significant risks for the government, given the IAF’s representation in parliament.

King Abdullah would have had to dissolve parliament, drawing on his constitutional authority to do so. Clearly, a decision was made against outlawing the IAF – most likely because it would have risked stoking widespread discontent at a sensitive moment for the kingdom, when it faces so much uncertainty in its relationship with the US.

Ultimately, Jordan’s latest move against the Brotherhood reflects the monarchy’s instinct for survival: cutting Islamist forces down to size without cutting them off entirely.

Given the circumstances, the royal court should resist any temptation to dissolve parliament or ban the IAF. That move would not assuage rising levels of discontent towards Israel and would instead drive widespread anger underground – while also undermining Jordan’s democratic experience and potentially losing it crucial international support.

Ultimately, Jordan’s latest move against the Brotherhood reflects the monarchy’s instinct for survival: cutting Islamist forces down to size without cutting them off entirely. In doing so, it hopes to ride out the regional turbulence without losing its grip on a restive society – a delicate balancing act it has managed for decades, but one that grows more precarious with each passing crisis.