OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Abdul El-Sayed Faces Scrutiny Over Past Islamist Regime Support

6 sources · updated 2026-09-25
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 4 right

What happened

Abdul El-Sayed, who won Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary in August, is running against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters. At a Wednesday “Students vs. Billionaires” town hall at the University of Michigan, student Iman Dashti, who identified himself as Persian and said a cousin had been hunted by Iran’s IRGC over hijab rules and an uncle sentenced to death and given 50 lashes, confronted El-Sayed over leaked audio from earlier this year in which El-Sayed declined to comment on the death of former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei because “there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today,” asking whether he regretted that silence, would renounce Khamenei vigils, stood “unequivocally against the IRGC,” and “You stand with us?”; El-Sayed said one can “stand in solidarity with freedom and democracy movements” but that the United States has too often acted as “the world’s policeman,” that “we should not be in the business of regime change,” and that Iranians must decide their own leadership. After appearing with former Vice President Kamala Harris at a campaign event, El-Sayed challenged a reporter who said some people might think he had “flip-flopped” on Harris because he had endorsed an “uncommitted” vote in the 2024 presidential primary. The Washington Free Beacon reported that El-Sayed was among 46 U.S.-based “leaders of the Egyptian community” who signed a 2012 letter on Egypt’s Al-Ahram Gate stating “we … support the revolutionary decisions taken by the president” — then Mohamed Morsi — “and we call on him to purge the media and the police as quickly as possible”; this week El-Sayed criticized President Trump’s revocation of White House credentials for MS Now, CNN, and Politico, telling Deadline Detroit that “Trump hates the idea of democracy” and “is interfering with the freedom of the press.”
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 4 articles

4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to The Washington Free Beacon. Most articles credit The Washington Free Beacon rather than reporting it themselves.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 4
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: Abdul El-Sayed, The Washington Free Beacon, Laura Loomer, Washington Free Beacon, Patrick Colbeck and Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 4
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: official document, press report, letter, news article
Credits another outlet 2 of 4
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: The Washington Free Beacon, Washington Free Beacon
Unnamed sources 1 of 4
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 Sep 24, 11:42 UTC by The Federalist, crediting The Washington Free Beacon, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Federalist (official document).
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 never reports the Iran confrontation, so the only past-statement fight a reader sees is whether El-Sayed changed course on Kamala Harris. The Hill describes him grilling a reporter who suggested he had flip-flopped after the pair appeared together, following his earlier support for an uncommitted primary vote. Fox News instead leads with a student pressing him over leaked audio in which he said he did not want to comment on a former Iranian leader's death because "there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today." The two sides also invert who holds the microphone. Left-leaning coverage opens on the candidate putting a reporter on the defensive. Fox News opens on a student putting the candidate on the defensive, and mentions Harris's joint appearance only after that exchange. What did El-Sayed actually say when he first backed an uncommitted vote?
Bottom line

The Hill never prints El-Sayed's leaked line about skipping comment on an Iranian leader's death because Dearborn was sad, which is the past statement Fox News used to open its story.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • El-Sayed said in leaked audio he did not want to comment on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's death because there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today official statementin Fox News, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • El-Sayed was among signers of a 2012 letter calling on Egypt's president to purge the media and the police official statementin The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Student Iman Dashti told El-Sayed his cousin was hunted by the IRGC over hijab rules and asked if he stood unequivocally against the IRGC individual casein Fox News, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • El-Sayed said the United States should not be in the business of regime change and that Iranians should decide their own leadership official statementin Fox News, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
The Hill cast El-Sayed as the aggressor in the media exchange, “grill[ing]” a reporter for the Harris “flip-flop” suggestion rather than treating inconsistency as established. The provided left-leaning sources did not address the Iran confrontation or the 2012 letter. The available defensive line is El-Sayed’s campaign statement that he “will always stand with movements for freedom and democracy, and he condemns government anti-free speech violence,” while opposing “regime change wars” that “take our service members’ lives, waste our tax dollars and raise our prices.” Bridge Michigan, as quoted by The Federalist, published a fact-check headlined “No evidence Abdul El-Sayed ‘pledged support’ to Muslim Brotherhood,” arguing he did not pledge such support “nor did he do so in a 2012 group letter defending then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.”
The Right View
Fox News and the New York Post billed a “tense exchange” and treated Dashti’s “Do you stand with us?” as unanswered in substance, arguing El-Sayed substituted “the world’s policeman” and “regime change” for a direct stand “unequivocally against the IRGC” and the Islamic Republic, and they featured Dashti’s line that the Dearborn audio left “a gaping hole in our community.” The Federalist argued he “cheered on an oppressive Islamist regime’s assault on the press,” called him “the Democrats’ Islamist communist candidate,” and said criticism of Trump for “interfering with the freedom of the press” is “interesting criticism from a guy who reportedly once urged the Muslim Brotherhood to ‘purge’ news outlets and law enforcement in Egypt.” It called Bridge Michigan’s fact-check “disingenuous” because “‘Defending’ is supporting,” said the fact-check “conveniently left out” the purge language, and concluded that reporting the letter is not “Islamophobia” but “journalism.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that a “flip-flop” label on Harris overstates a primary “uncommitted” protest, that El-Sayed’s town-hall distinction between solidarity with democratic movements and U.S. regime-change wars is anti-interventionism rather than sympathy for Tehran, and that Bridge Michigan’s “no evidence” of a Muslim Brotherhood “pledge” shows the 2012 letter is being over-read. The right’s strongest argument is the primary-source trail: declining to comment on Khamenei because Dearborn was “sad,” declining at the town hall to say he stood “unequivocally against the IRGC,” and signing a call to “purge the media and the police,” then attacking Trump as anti-press. The central unresolved tension is whether that trail shows hedging toward Islamist governments that his current democracy and press-freedom rhetoric does not rebut, or whether critics are converting anti-war answers and a 2012 community letter into an allegiance the documents do not prove.

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.