Skip to main content
Back to brief

Politics · October 24, 2026

Michigan Senate rivals clash over Muslim Brotherhood allegations as Rogers doubles down on El-Sayed

Part of: Michigan Senate: El-Sayed vs. Rogers →
4 sources →

With the 2026 Michigan U.S. Senate election approaching, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed engaged in a heated dispute regarding allegations of El-Sayed's past ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. During separate interviews on Fox News' 'Special Report' with Bret Baier, El-Sayed refused to answer specific questions about a 2012 letter involving former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, arguing that such inquiries were attempts to question his loyalty to the United States. While Rogers continues to emphasize these claims in his campaign, El-Sayed has simultaneously launched a new advertisement targeting Republican voters, featuring clips of conservative commentators praising him.

Read the original coverage

Reported across the spectrum

  • Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed are rival candidates for Michigan's U.S. Senate seat.
  • The candidates appeared separately for interviews with Bret Baier on 'Special Report' in Detroit.
  • The dispute involves a 2012 letter or statement related to former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.
  • El-Sayed asserted his loyalty to the U.S. Constitution during the interview.
  • The exchange occurred 11 days before the November 3 election.

Reported by only some outlets

  • El-Sayed launched a 'Red Hat' advertisement featuring clips of conservative pundits to appeal to Republican voters.
  • El-Sayed's campaign ad mentions shared goals with Republicans such as releasing Jeffrey Epstein files and the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement.
  • Fox News and the New York Post report that El-Sayed repeatedly interrupted Bret Baier and refused to listen to specific questions about the 2012 letter.
  • The Washington Post characterizes the Muslim Brotherhood claims made by Rogers as unfounded.

CadNews does not determine absolute truth or endorse political viewpoints. It compares publicly available reporting, identifies shared facts, highlights framing differences, and flags uncertainty.