OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Abdul El-Sayed Pushes Back on Muslim Brotherhood Question

6 sources · updated 2026-10-19
Left 50% Center 17% Right 33%
3 left · 1 center · 2 right

What happened

On Saturday, Democratic Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was asked at a town hall in Caro, Michigan, by an attendee identifying himself as Tommy: “Will you disavow the Muslim Brotherhood?” El-Sayed said, “Sure. Yeah, absolutely,” then asked what the question implied and argued it assumed dual loyalties because of his Muslim faith, analogizing to questions John F. Kennedy faced as a Catholic. The clip spread widely; on Sunday the questioner was identified as Thomas Teepell, who served as operations director for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) until February, and CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford deleted an X post that had thanked Tommy and called El-Sayed’s follow-up a “spectacular self own,” apologizing because it violated CBS News standards. That same day, Republican opponent Mike Rogers said on CNN’s State of the Union that El-Sayed “has a long history of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.” El-Sayed’s campaign has called alleged family ties to the group “racist and untrue”; he told Fox News his sister-in-law Mariam Jukaku was named in a 2016 federal terrorist-watchlist lawsuit, “did nothing wrong,” sued, and “got off.”
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 6 articles

6 of 6 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 6 of 6
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: Thomas Teepell, Marisa Kabas, Jan Crawford, Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 6
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: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 6
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 6
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.
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 18, 15:31 UTC by Breitbart, naming its source.
Not counted 0
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

Right-leaning coverage of the viral town hall never identifies the man who asked the Muslim Brotherhood question as a former Republican Senate aide. He is described as "a voter named Tommy" by Fox News. He is identified in Mother Jones as Thomas Teepell, who served as operations director for Sen. Josh Hawley. That job title recasts the clip from a constituent confrontation into a political operation, and it is missing from right-leaning accounts of the same video. Left-leaning coverage labels the Caro exchange a "bigoted gotcha attempt." Right-leaning coverage, quoting Crawford's deleted post, calls El-Sayed's answer a "spectacular self own." What specific evidence in El-Sayed's own campaign record, rather than a relative's lawsuit or a donor group's reputation, constitutes support for the Muslim Brotherhood?
Bottom line

A Fox News reader never learns that the man who asked El-Sayed to disavow the Muslim Brotherhood had been Sen. Josh Hawley's operations director; Mother Jones is the outlet that names him.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The questioner, Thomas Teepell, served as operations director for Sen. Josh Hawley until February contextin Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Teepell's father is a Republican strategist who later helped Hawley become a U.S. senator contextin Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Rogers said El-Sayed's money comes from CAIR, which he said supports the Muslim Brotherhood official statementin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • El-Sayed confirmed his sister-in-law Mariam Jukaku was involved in a 2016 federal terrorist-watchlist lawsuit individual casein Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets treated the exchange as El-Sayed defeating a bigoted loyalty test rather than answering a good-faith policy question. Mother Jones said he “flipped the script on a bigoted gotcha attempt,” stressing that after an immediate disavowal he forced the questioner to own an implicit dual-loyalty charge and that Tommy would not “disavow” reading religious doctrine into U.S. law; citing The Handbasket, it identified Teepell as a former Hawley staffer and wrote that in “trying to manufacture a gotcha moment, Teepell seems to have gotten got instead.” Coverage of Crawford framed a news correspondent’s deleted post as improper editorializing, with Karen Finney saying she was “caught red handed” trying to “spread false, racist lies about Abdul because he is Muslim.” El-Sayed told MS Now that “the whole reason this question is being asked is to insinuate that somehow I have dual loyalties.”
The Right View
Right-leaning sources framed the episode as about ideology and alleged organizational ties, not prayer. Rogers said he has “never called them a terrorist,” that “this is about the way you think, not the way you pray,” and that El-Sayed “has a long history of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood,” citing family relationships, CAIR funding, the group’s ban in five Muslim countries, and its record when it “took over in Egypt in 2012 and 2013”; he added that Muslims in Michigan had told his office they were “terrified” of that ideology. Fox News highlighted Crawford’s original line that El-Sayed’s “uninterrupted three-minute diatribe” was a “spectacular self own” proving the questioner’s point, and quoted NewsBusters’ Curtis Houck calling a “glaring” double standard in demands she be fired. Fox tied the question to prior reports of family connections, which the campaign has called “racist and untrue.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is provenance plus the candidate’s first answer: Teepell’s recent role as a Republican Senate operative, combined with El-Sayed’s immediate “yeah, absolutely,” supports the claim that repeating the demand functioned as a dual-loyalty test of the kind historically applied to religious minorities—the Kennedy analogy El-Sayed invoked, and the reason left outlets treat Crawford’s “self own” post as amplifying a smear. The right’s strongest argument is Rogers’s insistence that the issue is associations and ideology, not faith, backed by named claims (CAIR money, family links, support for the 2012–13 Egyptian Brotherhood government, bans in majority-Muslim countries) and by the length of El-Sayed’s rebuttal after a one-word disavowal. The central unresolved tension is whether, given those disputed affiliation claims, asking this Muslim candidate to disavow the Muslim Brotherhood is a legitimate probe of political ideology and networks or a religious loyalty test that would not be put to otherwise similarly situated non-Muslim candidates.

6 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.