The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy released a report alleging a deliberate, long-term strategy by Muslim Brotherhood–aligned Islamists to infiltrate Western institutions through a doctrine called tamkeen, arguing these networks seek to normalize Islamist influence and exploit democratic freedoms to transform societies from within.
The new ISGAP briefing frames the phenomenon as organized, ideological, and strategic rather than incidental. It warns that the Brotherhood and like-minded movements pursue patient, institutional entry that can quietly alter communities, legal norms, and civic culture. From a conservative perspective, this is not an abstract debate; it is a national-security concern tied to immigration policy, border control, and how we vet people who enter and settle in the United States. Policymakers should treat ideological entryism as a strategic threat, not merely a civil-rights talking point.
The report centers on tamkeen, a concept portrayed as a blueprint for stepwise entrenchment inside civil society. It argues Islamist actors do not always pursue sudden breakthroughs; instead, they position themselves in mosques, charities, advocacy groups, and education systems to reshape public discourse. That patient embedding lets them operate under the radar while expanding influence, a tactic critics say exploits an open society’s tolerance. Recognizing this pattern changes how you assess infiltration risks and which institutions deserve closer scrutiny.
Tamkeen is one of the Brotherhood’s most important doctrines. It refers to a deliberate process of institutional entrenchment and empowerment. Rather than seeking immediate revolution, it calls for embedding Islamist influence within civil society, consolidating authority inside Muslim communities, and normalizing Islamist discourse in the wider public arena. Tamkeen is not simply a tactic of survival; it is a long-term program of transformation in which Islamist movements position themselves to shape the environment around them until they are sufficiently entrenched to advance their wider ideological objectives.
The report points to pockets of concentrated influence as case studies, noting American cities with well-established communities and active institutions. Critics of current immigration and border policy say the last few years made the problem worse by allowing uncontrolled movement across the southern border, which complicates the ability of federal officials to track ideologically motivated actors. Whether or not every newcomer harbors bad intent, the report argues public leaders must accept that organized ideological projects have transnational funding and coordination, and those realities require a strategic response. That response, from this perspective, should include greater transparency and legal tools to stem entryism.
This preface highlights two central realities. First, Islamism is a deliberate ideological movement with a defined history, strategy, and set of objectives. It cannot be dismissed as incidental, nor confused with Islam itself. Second, Muslim Brotherhood Islamism has a global reach, with networks and influence extending into Western contexts, including the United States, where the doctrine of tamkeen provides the blueprint for embedding, normalizing, and expanding Islamist influence.
The briefing’s authors recommend draconian measures in some quarters, including formal terrorism designation for the Brotherhood and allied organizations. Supporters of that approach argue it would freeze assets, cut off funding channels, and limit legal cover for organizations that operate in democratic spaces while pursuing anti-democratic ends. Opponents counter that designation risks sweeping up community organizations and stoking religious backlash. From a Republican viewpoint favoring law and order, advocates say the risk of underreacting far outweighs the problems of being tough with groups that engage in covert political warfare.
The report quotes ISGAP’s director warning that the Brotherhood’s plan stretches across decades and aims at entrenched control. That rhetoric underscores the urgency felt by the authors and sympathetic conservatives who view the issue as existential. If true, it means slow, incremental gains today could translate into decisive influence tomorrow, which makes early detection and decisive action politically urgent. Critics must weigh civil liberties against the claim of a strategic entryism campaign that, if real, would exploit exactly the freedoms defenders aim to protect.
“We are now fifty years into the Brotherhood’s 100-year plan to entrench themselves into key institutions in the United States and other western societies to undermine and destroy our democracy,” Dr. Charles Asher Small, founding director of ISGAP and co-author of the report, told Fox News Digital.
“This is not simply a political movement but a transnational ideological project that adapts itself to Western systems while working to undermine them. The Brotherhood has learned to use the very freedoms of democracy as tools to erode it from within, exploiting the tolerance and openness of liberal societies as strategic vulnerabilities. This report lays out how, and what must now be done to defend our democracy. Designation as a terror organization is essential to safeguard our freedom and way of life and we must deal with the entryist damage that has already been done.”
Looking abroad, the report notes Europe has struggled with demographic and integration pressures after taking in large numbers of asylum seekers over recent years. Those shifts, the authors say, provide fertile ground for ideological groups to build parallel institutions and claim political space. The United States retains advantages like population size and geography, but those advantages are not guarantees. For leaders who prioritize national resilience, the takeaway is straightforward: reassess immigration controls, intelligence priorities, and legal mechanisms so democratic institutions cannot be quietly hollowed out.
At the end of the day, this briefing is meant to prod public debate and policymaking toward tougher scrutiny of transnational ideological networks. It frames tamkeen and similar doctrines as strategic threats that require clear-eyed responses and institutional safeguards. The issue will remain contested in courts and legislatures, but for now the report has thrust a controversial thesis into the center of the national-security conversation.
Add comment