The end of US-led global counter-terrorism? Changing trends in terrorist designation

The end of US-led global counter-terrorism? Changing trends in terrorist designation   | The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT)

By: Brian Phillips

September 10, 2025

Mr. Phillips begins his analysis as such:

“Global counter-terrorism is fundamentally changing, as is evident in recent patterns of terrorist designation. For decades, the US Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) list has been a bellwether of counter-terrorism policies – countries around the world, both US allies and others, have often followed the list when updating their own terrorist lists. However, a strong divergence is becoming apparent.

The United States under President Donald Trump is shifting course by focusing counter-terrorism resources on groups traditionally thought of as criminal organisations – drug traffickers in Mexico and gangs in Haiti, for example. The United States has added 12 such groups to its FTO list this year so far. Most other countries, however, have not added these criminal organisations, or any criminal groups, to their own terrorist lists. Traditional US partners like European countries do not seem to view crime groups as appropriate subjects of counter-terrorism. For the first time ever, most other countries are not following the FTO list.

Meanwhile, US allies increasingly focus counter-terrorism on far-right organisations. Canada and the United Kingdom each include eight far-right or white supremacist organisations on their terrorist lists, and the EU, Australia, and New Zealand list such groups as well. The US FTO list, however, does not include any far-right organisations.

This article analyses global patterns in terrorist designation. It describes the wave of criminal groups added to the FTO list this year, explaining  why this occurred and why it is so unusual. The article then discusses the recent pattern of other countries listing far-right organisations. It concludes with broader trends and implications.

Terrorist designation: widespread and consequential

One of the most widespread and enduring legacies of post-9/11 counter-terrorism is terrorist designation – the labelling of certain entities as terrorist organisations, which usually imposes serious punishments on the groups and those who might support them. Some aspects of the “war on terror,” like major military interventions and drone strikes, have waxed and waned over time, but terrorist lists seem to only grow.

Dozens of countries, along with international institutions like the United Nations and the European Union, now maintain terrorist lists. This is not only a Western phenomenon. Russia and China, India and Pakistan, Argentina, and Nigeria all have their own terrorist lists, as does the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Hundreds of armed groups around the world appear on at least one national or regional terrorist list.

The terrorist lists are highly diverse. This is due to different definitions of terrorism, legal restrictions, and distinct goals regarding terrorist listing (e.g., foreign policy vs. domestic policy). For example, the US FTO list, with 81 organisations, includes only non-US groups, and about half are Islamist organisations. The UK lists a similar number of groups (84), but a clear majority (about 70 percent) are Islamist, and the list includes US-based and domestic UK organisations. The European Union list contains 22 organisations, from Europe and abroad, and only about one third are Islamist. Countries in other regions, with distinct threats and different types of legal systems (e.g., Russia and China), have terrorist lists that are even more dissimilar.

Research shows that terrorist designation can lead to important consequences. In the United States, terrorist designation has led to tens of millions of dollars frozen or seized from listed organisations. Some studies show that the financial pressure on designated terrorist groups is associated with subsequent reductions in terrorism, at least for certain kinds of groups. Terrorist designation also has implications for civil war, sometimes hindering peace processes. There are also substantial human rights implications, including when groups and individuals feel they have been wrongly listed. In spite of these costs, terrorist designation as a practice is increasingly common, with organisations often added to lists, and few organisations removed. Terrorist designation can provide a helpful signal to the international community about priorities, and within each country, it can help counter-terrorism agencies coordinate and prioritise on certain terrorist threats.”

Mr.Phillips continues his analysis as follows:

• The US FTO list as the most influential CT signal
• War on crime: The FTO list gets a major makeover…
• … but other countries aren’t following this time
• Outside the US, a growing focus on far-right terrorism
• Part of a broader pattern
• The future of terrorist designation?