Cruz Attacks Senate Candidate El-Sayed Over Israel
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
During a Tuesday appearance on Fox News’s “Hannity,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, over El-Sayed’s stance on Israel and alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Cruz said of El-Sayed, “It’s not complicated. He hates Israel. He hates Jews,” called him “an open antisemite,” and said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders were “proudly standing with him.” Cruz alleged that El-Sayed had written op-eds defending the Muslim Brotherhood, that El-Sayed’s sister had tweeted that their family had long supported the group, that El-Sayed had “flat-out lied” on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about those connections, and that El-Sayed’s father-in-law — described as the largest donor to the biggest super PAC backing El-Sayed — founded an Islamic organization that was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, which involved funneling more than $12 million to Hamas. Cruz also said El-Sayed had not distanced himself from commentator Hasan Piker. Cruz argued that senators do not undergo a security-clearance process and that if El-Sayed were elected, Schumer could place him on the Senate Intelligence Committee, creating what Cruz called an “unacceptably high risk” that classified information would be shared with “Muslim Brotherhood terrorists” and that American servicemembers and covert assets would be endangered.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 2 articles
1 of 2 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 1 of 2
- 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: Sen. Ted Cruz
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- 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 2
- 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 2
- 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 21, 15:22 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
Left-leaning coverage treats Cruz's warning that El-Sayed would leak secrets as an empty smear, while right-leaning coverage is simply more complete on the evidence he claimed. The Hill says Cruz "baselessly claims" El-Sayed may share intel with terrorists, and does not recap the Brotherhood writings Cruz cited. Right-leaning coverage reprints those alleged ties and his claim that winning office itself confers a security clearance. Readers who see only the left account cannot test the scare against Cruz's own bill of particulars.
Right-leaning coverage leads with an antisemitism charge; left-leaning coverage leads with a double standard toward other faiths. Breitbart opens on Cruz saying El-Sayed hates Israel. The Hill instead runs a line that Republicans do not make the same extremist-organization argument about Catholic or Christian candidates.
Did El-Sayed's Meet the Press answers address the op-eds and family tweets Cruz called overwhelming evidence?
Bottom line
The Hill dismissed Cruz's leak warning as baseless without naming the Holy Land Foundation donor he cited. Breitbart ran that charge and never aired the Catholic-candidate comparison.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Cruz said that when Mohamed Morsi took over Egypt, El-Sayed urged Morsi to purge the press and the police
- Cruz said El-Sayed's sister tweeted twice that their family has long supported the Muslim Brotherhood
The Left View
The Hill described Cruz’s assertion that El-Sayed may share intelligence with terrorists as baseless. Left-leaning coverage also argued that Republicans do not make comparable accusations against Catholic or Christian candidates, stating that “there are extremist organizations within both religions.”
The Right View
Breitbart presented Cruz’s remarks as a straightforward judgment that El-Sayed “hates Israel” and “hates Jews” and is “an open antisemite,” with Democratic leadership “proudly standing with him.” As quoted, Cruz treated the alleged Brotherhood writings, family tweets, Meet the Press answers, and father-in-law donor link as “overwhelming” evidence that El-Sayed “is Muslim Brotherhood,” and warned that Intelligence Committee access would put American lives at risk.
Our Take (balanced)
The right’s strongest argument is Cruz’s charge that El-Sayed is “an open antisemite” who “hates Israel” and “hates Jews,” tied to the specific family, donor, and writing associations Cruz cited and to the fact that senators receive classified access without a clearance process — a combination Cruz said created an “unacceptably high risk” of leaks to “Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.” The left’s strongest argument is that Cruz “baselessly claims” El-Sayed may share intelligence with terrorists, and that Republicans do not apply the same security charge to Catholic or Christian candidates despite extremist organizations in those religions. The central unresolved tension is whether El-Sayed’s record and associations substantiate antisemitism and a national-security threat, or whether Cruz’s warning is an unproven inference that would not be leveled at candidates of other faiths.
2 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.