OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

El-Sayed Faces Scrutiny Over Muslim Brotherhood Ties

8 sources · updated 2026-10-25
Left 25% Center 12% Right 62%
2 left · 1 center · 5 right

What happened

During a Fox News interview that aired Friday on "Special Report" from Detroit, Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed clashed with host Bret Baier over questions about alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist political organization, an issue pressed by Republican opponent and former Rep. Mike Rogers 11 days before the Nov. 3 election. Baier asked about a 2012 letter that El-Sayed signed supporting decisions by then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who was affiliated with the Brotherhood, including calls to purge Egypt's police and media. El-Sayed interrupted to say the question was meant to raise doubts about "dual loyalty," stated he had never been and never would be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, pledged that his "loyalty will be to the Constitution of the United States," and told Baier to "be a journalist." In a separate interview that day, Rogers said the issue was "not how he prays, it's how he thinks" and alleged El-Sayed "has adopted the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood." El-Sayed had answered "Sure. Yeah, absolutely" when asked to disavow the organization at an Oct. 17 town hall.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 8 articles

6 of 7 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Abdul El-Sayed denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 6 of 7
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Mike Rogers, Abdul El-Sayed, Bret Baier, Kristen Welker and Abby Ronson
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 7
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: letter
Credits another outlet 0 of 7
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 7
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Abdul El-Sayed (Fox News, Oct 24, 01:45 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 24, 01:21 UTC by Breitbart, naming its source. First document 7 hours later, from Daily Wire (letter).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage omits the 2012 letter Baier was asking about, so the story reads as a host being dressed down. The Hill reports El-Sayed telling Baier to "be a journalist" after questions about alleged Brotherhood ties, and does not describe the letter. Right-leaning coverage at Fox News reports that the letter supported Mohamed Morsi's calls to purge Egypt's police and media. It also reports El-Sayed answering that the question implied dual loyalty. Those details change whether the clash looks like a smear or a dispute over El-Sayed's own words. Right-leaning coverage leads with El-Sayed cutting off the question. Left-leaning coverage leads with his attack on the interviewer. Daily Wire opens on alleged terror ties, while The Hill opens on the spat itself. Has El-Sayed confirmed he signed the 2012 letter, and what did he mean by its call to purge Egypt's police and media?
Bottom line

The Hill's account of the Fox interview never mentions the 2012 letter supporting Mohamed Morsi, so readers see a candidate scolding Bret Baier and not a dispute over El-Sayed's own past statement.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A 2012 letter El-Sayed allegedly signed supported Mohamed Morsi's calls to purge Egypt's police and media official statementin Fox News, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Social media posts from El-Sayed's half-sister described family Muslim Brotherhood history and their mother's 1970s activism individual casein Fox News, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • El-Sayed's mother formerly worked at the Islamic American Relief Agency, a charity designated for supporting terrorist organizations individual casein Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • El-Sayed's sister-in-law was a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging her alleged placement on a terrorist watchlist individual casein Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage framed the interview as El-Sayed pushing back against Baier for repeating Rogers's accusations of "alleged ties" rather than conducting independent journalism. The Hill centered El-Sayed's rebuke—"Be a journalist"—presenting the questions as a campaign attack the candidate refused to treat as a legitimate news inquiry.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets framed El-Sayed's interruption as a refusal to answer on the 2012 letter's merits, replacing a document question with a charge that Baier was probing "dual loyalty." Breitbart highlighted his claim that Baier would pull "a ridiculous 2012 statement in a letter" "out of context" to "ask questions about my allegiance." Fox News and The Daily Wire cited posts by his maternal half-sister, University of Chicago professor Eman Abdelhadi, that "My family has long been MB" and that their mother engaged in Brotherhood activism as a college student in the early 1970s, and noted reporting that their mother had worked for the Islamic American Relief Agency, which was later designated for supporting terrorist organizations and pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions; she was not charged, and El-Sayed has denied personal or family ties, saying he was raised by his father and stepmother. The Daily Wire called it a "simple question about terror ties" that sent him "reeling." Rogers, a former House Intelligence Committee chairman, rejected the faith-attack characterization; senators including Ted Cruz have raised concerns about classified-information access. El-Sayed said it was "sad" and "beneath" Rogers and President Trump to make his Muslim faith a campaign issue.
Our Take (balanced)
El-Sayed's strongest argument is that the inquiry is a loyalty test of a Muslim candidate: he has denied membership, disavowed the group, and pledged to the Constitution, and reporting has not shown he belonged to the Brotherhood. Rogers's strongest argument is that the signed 2012 letter backing Morsi's purge of police and media, plus his half-sister's posts that the family had "long been MB," are concrete association questions that El-Sayed met with process objections rather than a substantive reply. The central unresolved tension is whether those documents and relatives' claims are a legitimate measure of a Senate candidate's ideology, or an unfair imputation of dual loyalty grounded in Muslim identity and family history.

8 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.