博客

Politics

Talarico campaigns alongside Democrat who called ICE ‘new KKK’ and demanded its abolition

Frederick Haynes III urged abolishing ICE at a get-out-the-vote event as Talarico pitches himself as a moderate

By Leo BricenoFox News

Published November 2, 2026 12:05pm EST

Former classmate accuses James Talarico of putting political ambition over truth

Fox News host Will Cain discusses accusations from James Talarico’s former classmate Mike Garcia about the Democratic Texas Senate candidate’s honesty on ‘The Will Cain Show.’

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/2cb9c344-90ce-4b4f-bcc8-2784da07d25a

Listen to this article

4 min

James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate in Texas, briefly praised Frederick Haynes III, a Democratic congressional candidate who compared President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts to the KKK, at a get-out-the-vote event on Thursday as part of his Clear Eyes Full Hearts tour.

“Give it up for your next congressman, Dr. Freddy Haynes. Thank you, Dr. Haynes, for those kind words and for your service to this community,” Talarico said, following an introduction and speech from Haynes.

Although Talarico has not issued a formal endorsement of Haynes, the moment is notable for Talarico as he pitches himself as a Democrat who can represent the values of the Republican-leaning Lone Star State — and as he tries to distance himself from controversy over past remarks Republicans have characterized as woke.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

TALARICO RALLY WARMUP ACT CALLS FOR ABOLISHING ICE, CONTRASTING SENATE HOPEFUL’S MESSAGE

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/james-talarico.jpg

State Representative James Talarico addresses the crowd during a campaign rally after launching his Senate campaign for the seat currently held by John Cornyn in Round Rock, Texas, Sept. 9, 2025.(Callaghan O’Hare for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Haynes, the pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church, has framed many of his political views in the context of race and did so again on the event with Talarico.

“You transformed ICE into the new KKK and brought about terror in this nation,” Haynes said of Trump’s use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“It’s time to melt ICE. It’s time to abolish ICE,” Haynes added.

Haynes is running to fill the seat of Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, the incumbent in Texas’ 30th Congressional District who gave up her seat in a Senate bid she ultimately lost. During his campaign, Haynes has framed his support for climate policy as a fight against “environmental racism.” He has also accused conservatives and the Trump administration of benefiting from fears of Black advancement.

“They have used Black people and perceived Black progress as the boogeyman. We have not witnessed this kind of corruption, this kind of blatant corruption,” Haynes said in an October interview.

“We are witnessing the demolishing of what democratic infrastructure was built by the gains of the civil rights movement,” Haynes added.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

Even before his congressional run, Haynes made political commentary that relied heavily on a racial lens.

After the death of Charlie Kirk, a conservative political commentator who started Turning Point USA, Haynes described Kirk as a man with views “rooted in White supremacy” and contrasted it with the deaths of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

“A White Christian gets killed, murdered — not assassinated. We going to tell the whole truth today. Martin King got assassinated. Malcolm X got assassinated. Medgar Evers got assassinated. Don’t compare Kirk to King,” Haynes said in a September 2025 address to his church.

UN PUSHES NATIONS TO CONSIDER SLAVERY REPARATIONS BUT LEGAL GROUP SAYS IDEA ‘NOT GOING TO FLY IN THE US’

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/crockett-announcement.jpg

Rev. Frederick Douglass Haynes III, a Dallas megachurch pastor and social activist, is running to replace Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, in Texas Congressional District 30.(Fox News)

Haynes would go on to condemn Kirk’s death and political violence.

Haynes has also said he was a personal supporter of reparations.

“America, you owe us. What you done to us has been immoral. It’s been evil. It’s been unjust. It’s been downright wrong and the only way to bring salvation to America — you gotta pay us what you owe us,” Haynes said at a Solidarity for Reparations event at a San Francisco church.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

“I’ve come by to say, San Francisco, California, Texas, United States of America, if you want salvation to come to this house, you’ve got to engage in reparations.”

For his own part, Talarico has also supported the idea of reparations, framing it as an outflow of his religious convictions.

“Reparations, repairing past harms, is part of my faith tradition. It’s part of the values I was raised with,” Talarico said in a town hall meeting in July. “We have to correct the injustices of our past.”

In the closing days of his campaign, Talarico has argued that, despite some of his views on race and gender which run counter to conservative stances, he could still represent Texas as a moderate.

TALARICO SAYS HE ‘MISSED THE MARK’ AS HE BACKTRACKS ON CONTROVERSIAL WOKE STATEMENTS

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/haynes-frederic-final-edited-2.jpg

Frederick Haynes III is running to replace outgoing Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas. He is a megachurch pastor in Dallas who Crockett has cited as “my pastor.”(Haynes for Congress)

“Our campaign has been able to show that you can be a more moderate, reasonable candidate and still be exciting,” Talarico said in October.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

Talarico’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment if his comment about Haynes should be viewed as an endorsement of his platform or his views on race in politics.

Leo Briceno is a politics reporter for the congressional team at Fox News Digital. He was previously a reporter with World Magazine.

How Alaska’s ranked choice voting system works with 2 Dan Sullivans on the ballot for Senate

November 2, 2026 / 11:09 AM EST / CBS News

Voters in Alaska are going to the polls to cast their ballots in key races, including a Senate election that has garnered widespread attention amid scrutiny over the presence of a candidate bearing nearly the same name as the sitting senator, Dan Sullivan.

Alaska’s election system itself has also been in the spotlight in recent years, since the state instituted a top-four nonpartisan primary and ranked choice voting in the general election.

Here’s what to know about Alaska’s voting system:

What is ranked choice voting?

Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank as many or as few candidates as they’d like in order of preference, rather than selecting a single candidate on the ballot. First implemented in 2022, the unique system aims to stymie polarization by moving the state away from party primaries. Instead, the top four candidates in the nonpartisan primary move on to the general election.

On Tuesday, if any candidate secures support from more than 50% of voters as their top choice, they win. But if nobody wins an outright majority, the count goes to a second round. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters’ votes are redistributed to their second choice. That process continues until one candidate wins a majority.

For example, say 100 people voted in the Alaska Senate race. Fifty of those voters ranked Candidate A as their top choice, 40 picked Candidate B, seven picked Candidate C and three picked Candidate D. Since no candidate reached 51 votes in the first round, Candidate D — the one with the fewest votes — would be eliminated in the second round of counting. The voters who ranked Candidate D first would then have their second-choice candidates tabulated. If one of those three votes went to Candidate A, Candidate A would have 51 votes and win. If not, the process would repeat.

In 2022, a special election was held to fill a vacancy in the House, and three candidates faced off under the new system. No candidate won more than 50% of first-choice votes, and the contest went to the ranked choice tabulation. Democrat Mary Peltola secured a majority in results that came 15 days after Election Day. Later that year, as she sought election to a full term, Peltola also won on the second round, with 55% of the voters after an initial 48.8%.

Who are the Alaska Senate candidates?

Alaska’s Senate race could be key to determining control of the upper chamber. Voters will be presented with four choices: Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the GOP incumbent; Daniel J. Sullivan, a candidate with nearly the same name; Gerald Heikes, another Republican; and Peltola.

Sen. Sullivan is a second-term senator and a Marine veteran who worked at the State Department during the George W. Bush administration. His main opponent is Peltola, who became the first Democrat to represent the state in the House in 50 years in 2022. But Daniel J. Sullivan has added a wrinkle to the race.

The second Sullivan is a former teacher who announced he was challenging the sitting senator in June, prompting an unsuccessful push to remove him from the ballot.

Two Dan Sullivans on the ballot

Daniel J. Sullivan’s decision to run sparked a legal fight over his eligibility to appear on the primary ballot that played out in state court over the summer. The state supreme court eventually allowed Daniel J. Sullivan to remain on the ballot and directed Alaska’s Division of Elections to determine how he should be listed.

During Alaska’s open Senate primary in August, Peltola garnered 49.5% of the vote, followed by Dan Sullivan, the senator, at 41.4%. The retired teacher, Daniel J. Sullivan, won just 2.5%.

A sample ballot for the general election shows the senator listed as “Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) Incumbent.” Daniel J. Sullivan has no identifiers beyond his name.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26296698571061.jpg

A sample election ballot is displayed in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, Oct. 23, 2026. (AP Photo/Haven Daley) Haven Daley

Still, the candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan raised concerns that it could lead to voter confusion and drew a late-breaking effort by the Justice Department to intervene.

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit late last month that sought to block Alaska election officials from certifying the results of the Senate election if Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, loses to Peltola. But on Sunday, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the federal government did not have the legal right to sue.

The Justice Department has said it will appeal.

Amid the litigation, the New York Times reported last week that there was a secret effort by political operatives aligned with Peltola’s campaign to help recruit Daniel J. Sullivan to peel voters away from the senator. Peltola has denied any involvement in the alleged plan.

How long could counting votes in Alaska’s ranked choice voting system take?

Conducting the election in Alaska is expected to take some time, experts have warned, emphasizing the need for patience as the Senate race holds the potential to play a key role in the balance of power in Washington.

Part of the lengthy process could come from Alaska’s sprawling geography, remote locations and mail ballots, since Alaska counts mail ballots received 10 days after Election Day, or 15 days in some cases.

Tabulation rounds in Alaska’s ranked choice voting system also begin after the last counting of ballots 15 days after Election Day, meaning if one candidate does not secure more than 50% of first-place support on the ballot, the process could drag on for weeks.

Alaska election officials are targeting Nov. 25 as the day to certify the election results. In 2022, Peltola secured a full, two-year term on Nov. 30.

What polls do and don’t tell us about the 2026 midterms

2026-11-02T16:50:05.203Z

Can the polls be trusted? It depends on what you’re trusting them to do.

Even the most carefully conducted polls are imprecise snapshots of public opinion, not precision instruments — and when they’re pressed into predictive tools, they don’t always get it right. But while surveys can’t provide an unambiguous answer on who’s ahead in tight races, they often do paint a clear and important picture of the political landscape.

The contours of some findings are sharply drawn enough to be visible even through the shadows of potential polling error. Poll after poll has found President Donald Trump’s approval rating in the mid-to-low-30s nationally. Surveys also show a broad consensus that Americans, shaken by cost of living concerns, largely take a dim view of the economy and Trump’s stewardship of it; that there’s little enthusiasm in any corner about the current state of the nation; and that voters are overwhelminglylookingforchange — even if they may not all agree on precisely what that change should look like.

Similarly, Democrats’ lead on the national “generic ballot” has been consistent and robust enough to suggest that the party has an overall advantage — and it would require an unprecedented level of polling error to overcome that. But there’s far less certainty about the precise level of that advantage, or how that might play out in individual races. Even a small difference in Democratic strength compared to what the polls suggest could mean the difference between a blue wave that sweeps well into Republican territory, and one that fails to overcome a deeply Republican-friendly Senate map.

One thing that’s challenging for pollsters this year is that there’s another finding that looks simultaneously like a defining factor of the race and a potential source of polling error: the yawning gap in partisan enthusiasm about voting.

Polls — consistent with early voting data — have found that, compared to Republicans, Democrats report being far more motivated to vote this year. That’s playing a role both in pollsters’ efforts to get people to answer surveys, and in their attempts to identify which potential voters will actually end up casting ballots in this election.

Per Gallup, the Democratic enthusiasm advantage is the largest in any midterm dating back to 1994. That’s in part because, particularly in his second term, Trump provokes far more fervent opposition than he does ardent support. It also owes in part to the growing education divide in American politics, with college-educated voters likelier than those without degrees both to turn out in a midterm year, and to vote Democratic if they do.

But that same enthusiasm divide could also be shaping voters’ willingness to respond to polls.

In a Washington Post-Schar School poll of Kansas, for instance, registered Democrats who were contacted by interviewers were far likelier than registered Republicans to complete the survey. While that disparity hasn’t been universal this cycle, the final set of New York Times/Siena College polls also saw a similar response pattern.

This type of variation, sometimes called “differential nonresponse,” isn’t an entirely new challenge for pollsters. Some types of people have always been more likely than others to answer surveys, including older adults, those with higher levels of education and those who are more civically engaged. Pollsters address that disparity by weighting their results to make the demographics of their sample look more like the broad universe of people they’re trying to measure. Increasingly, that also includes weighting to known partisan targets, such as the levels of party registration in a state or vote choice in the 2024 election.

What concerns pollsters are those patterns that aren’t fully corrected for, even after weighting to demographic and partisan targets. A poll could have the “right” number of Republicans and Democrats to reflect the electorate but not reach the right mix of voters within each party.

Not every registered voter turns out to cast a ballot in each election — in most years, 40% or more sit it out — and that can also complicate the picture for pollsters. In order to reflect the views of those who do ultimately turn out, pollsters identify likely voters, and those efforts can be complicated by the same factors that make it hard to reach less enthused potential voters.

There’s a possibility that some types of Republicans may be too disengaged to respond to surveys, but still sufficiently motivated that they’ll end up voting — or that the most engaged and enthusiastic Democrats will be overrepresented in surveys.

Even if the polls accurately reflect the dynamics at the time they were conducted, there’s still room for a shift after that polling is completed if Republican voters coalesce late around their candidates.

CNN’s final state polls, for instance, gave voters an option to say they wouldn’t support either candidate in the upcoming Senate race — and even after being asked a follow-up question about which way they’d lean, 6% to 8% in each poll said that, between the two leading candidates, they’d back “neither” or someone else. The poll also pressed voters to choose which party they’d rather see in control of the Senate, even if they initially said it didn’t matter to them. Looking at those two questions together tells us that in most of these polls, voters who favor GOP control were more likely than those who’d rather see a Democratic win to opt out of picking a major-party candidate — by about 9 points in Texas, 6 points in Kansas and 4 points in Michigan.

That could well reflect what happens on Election Day. The Republican nominees in Texas and Kansas, Ken Paxton and Roger Marshall, face specific image problems that have made it more difficult for them to consolidate their party’s support, and it’s fully plausible that GOP-inclined voters in those states might end up taking a pass on the race altogether. But it also suggests that Democrats haven’t yet sealed the deal.In a set of relatively tight races, that could be enough to significantly tighten margins or change the outcome of some races altogether.

On the other hand, it’s not a given that any polling miss would be in favor of the Democrats. Presidential polls in the past three cycles have underestimated Republicans’ share of the vote relative to Democrats: by around 3 points in 2016 and 2024, and close to 5 points in 2020.

But there hasn’t been a similar pattern in Trump-era midterm elections. Nor is it guaranteed that polling misses would look the same across the many different states in play.

As we wrote in 2024, polling data is a single, imperfect gauge of people’s opinions. But polls of the US, ultimately, are a means of talking to Americans across a wide range of demographics, life experiences and views, on topics that stretch far beyond elections, or even politics. In a deeply fragmented society, and with social media often reflecting an unrepresentative sample of the loudest voices, they’re still a valuable tool for understanding the country as a whole.

House Dems demand Haley Stevens’ exile as Jeffries reveals deadline on deciding her fate

Stevens, a Democrat, endorsed former GOP Rep Mike Rogers over party nominee Abdul El-Sayed two days before midterms

By Elizabeth Elkind , Pedro B Rodriguez-AparicioFox News

Published November 2, 2026 1:31pm EST

Haley Stevens sparks Democratic division with shocking Senate endorsement

Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens faces intense party backlash after endorsing Republican candidate Mike Rogers over Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in the heated Michigan Senate race.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/6c2f171e-6bdf-46ed-bc4e-2ae551438804

Listen to this article

4 min

House Democratic leaders are holding off on deciding whether to punish Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., after she endorsed a Republican in Michigan’s Senate race, drawing calls from fellow Democrats for her removal from the party’s House caucus.

Stevens endorsed former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., over Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, a former public health official, on Nov. 1 — just two days before Tuesday’s midterm elections.

The decision prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, including lawmakers who want Stevens expelled from the House Democratic Caucus, but party leaders are waiting until after the elections to address her future.

HALEY STEVENS RIPPED BY FELLOW DEMS FOR REFUSING TO EXPLICITLY BACK EL-SAYED: ‘STAY THE F— OFF TELEVISION’

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/mike-rogers-haley-stevens-detroit-church.jpg

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan and U.S. Senate candidate, and Rep. Haley Stevens, a Democrat from Michigan, speak to members of the media following a service at Perfecting Church in Detroit on Nov. 1, 2026.(Bloomberg via Getty Images)

A senior Democratic aide told Fox News Digital that House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., would likely support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in his response to Stevens’ endorsement.

HALEY STEVENS’ FIANCE HAMMERS EL-SAYED, SAYS HE’LL VOTE FOR ROGERS

“Haley Stevens made a terrible decision, blindsided everyone and isolated herself from the House Democratic caucus. We will have a discussion about appropriate next steps upon our return,” Jeffries told POLITICO.

Spokespeople for Jeffries and Aguilar did not respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.

Stevens, a four-term lawmaker, is leaving Congress at the end of the year after narrowly losing Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed.

Since her loss, Stevens has taken a lukewarm approach to supporting El-Sayed’s campaign while also criticizing his approach to Israel and Jewish and Black voters.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/House-Dem-leadership.jpg

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks alongside Rep. Pete Aguilar and Rep. Katherine Clark during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 8, 2026.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

BLACK VOTERS, JEWISH DEMOCRATS IN MICHIGAN WARY OF VOTING FOR EL-SAYED, SAY ‘HE’S TAKING ADVANTAGE’

That fragile peace ruptured over the weekend when El-Sayed’s campaign publicly asked Stevens to abstain from appearing at any of his events even after she said she would attend church with him and Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., in a bid to mobilize Black voters.

Stevens apparently blindsided fellow Democrats when she then appeared at another church alongside Rogers and his wife and subsequently endorsed the Republican ahead of Election Day.

EL-SAYED’S PAST MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD COMMENTS RAISE RED FLAGS AS HE EYES POWERFUL ROLE

Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said during a Sunday appearance on CNN that Stevens had reassured her “multiple times” over the weekend that she would not endorse Rogers.

“I don’t know what changed between late Saturday and Sunday morning,” Dingell said during another CNN appearance Monday.

And the endorsement also spurred her ouster from the Michigan state Democratic Party.

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Curtis Hertel wrote on X that Stevens “is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future” after she backed Rogers.

In the House, Democratic officials, such as Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., have already called for Stevens’ removal.

“Deplorable and embarrassing. Capitulating to fascism, Islamophobia, racism and the policies hurting everyday Americans makes you unfit to serve with the Democratic caucus,” Ramirez wrote on X. “Shame on Haley Stevens. She must be removed from the caucus.”

HALEY STEVENS CONDEMNS HASAN PIKER BUT RALLIES BEHIND EL-SAYED AFTER NARROW PRIMARY LOSS

Ramirez did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., echoed Ramirez’s claim and added that Stevens “has no place in our party,” according to POLITICO.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/abdul-el-sayed-reporter-questions.png

Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan Abdul El-Sayed takes questions from reporters after a campaign rally on Oct. 24, 2026, in Detroit.(Paul Steinhauser/Fox News Digital)

Vocal organizations aligned with the Democratic Party, such as the IfNotNow movement, have also formally called on the congresswoman to be removed from the caucus, calling her endorsement a betrayal to the party.

“As national organizations representing Jewish, Muslim, and Democratic voters opposed to Donald Trump’s war on Iran, which is responsible for the rising costs of gas and groceries and an affordability crisis that is taking a heavy toll on working families at a time when the future of our democracy is at stake,” the organization said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. “We call on House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to expel Congresswoman Stevens from the Democratic Caucus and strip her of her committee assignments.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If Stevens was removed from the caucus, she would no longer be able to attend its weekly meetings in the U.S. Capitol. Democrats could also pursue action against her committee assignments, though the process and authority for doing so would need to be determined under the applicable caucus and House rules.

And it appears Stevens’ staff has also shunned her over the endorsement. When Fox News Digital reached out to her office for comment on the backlash from House Democrats, an automated response from her communications director said he is “no longer with the Office of Congresswoman Haley Stevens” as of Nov. 1, the day she backed Rogers.

Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com

Judge dismisses case against 2 ex-FBI officials in Hunter Biden probe

2026-11-02T11:22:00-0500 / CBS News

A federal magistrate judge on Monday dismissed a criminal complaintchargingtwo former senior FBI counterintelligence officials with lying to Congress about their roles in the bureau’s Hunter Biden investigation, saying the politically charged case lacked evidence and appeared to be timed with the midterm election.

In a scathing, hour-long oral ruling, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui rebuked the Justice Department and the FBI for what he called a “slapdash” case that lacked any probable cause that there was evidence Nikki Floris or Bradley Benavides had committed a crime.

“Without motive, without direct evidence, I have nothing,” he said. “It’s not close. It’s nothing.”

“I am deeply troubled by what has happened in this case,” Faruqui said. “What has transpired here can’t be described as anything other than weaponization.”

Although the complaint was dismissed, the Justice Department could still appeal Faruqui’s ruling to the chief judge or seek a grand jury indictment.

A Justice Department spokesperson said it “disagrees with the Magistrate’s decision, which remarkably appears to suggest that high-ranking government officials are immune from accountability for making materially false statements to Congress.”

“We are evaluating all options but cannot comment further on an ongoing criminal investigation,” the spokesperson said. “The Department’s actions will continue to be guided by the facts, the evidence, and the law — not politics.”

CBS News has also reached out to the FBI and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office for comment.

Floris was a former top intelligence analyst in charge at the bureau’s Washington Field Office, while Benavides was the former deputy assistant director at the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. The two embraced outside the courtroom after the decision as Floris cried tears of relief.

They were flanked by numerous former senior Justice Department and FBI officials who had come to support them, including former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and Steve Jensen, the former head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

“This case should have never been brought,” said Margaret Donovan, one of Floris’ attorneys, in a statement to reporters outside the courthouse. “This was a slapdash complaint, spaghetti at the wall, Hunter Biden conspiracy fever dream. But facts still matter in a courtroom.”

The criminal case against Floris and Benavides has been highly unusual since it first came to light earlier this month.

Prosecutors charged the pair in a criminal complaint, a charging document that is generally only used in felony cases that pose exigent public safety or national security threats. Usually, prosecutors secure a grand jury indictment before filing charges.

After midnight on the eve of the court hearing’s first day last Tuesday, prosecutors used an unsigned and unsworn superseding complaint to try to add new charges of obstructing Congress — a maneuver the magistrate judge said was improper and unheard of.

Faruqui struck the superseding complaint from the record, saying it lacked proper judicial review. But he allowed the hearing on the original complaint to proceed in a marathon evidentiary proceeding with three days of testimony that culminated in Monday’s extraordinary decision.

Throughout those three days, FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt, who was assigned to help investigate the matter, candidly acknowledged to the court that the case had not been handled like any other in his career.

He testified that it was opened at the behest of FBI Director Kash Patel just one day after President Donald Trump gave a televised speech in July where he accused intelligence officials of engaging in a coverup to hide China’s interference in the 2020 election and ordered the Justice Department to pursue prosecutions. Throughout the investigation, senior officials including the FBI’s deputy directors and Patel himself checked on the progress.

Witt also acknowledged that he feared it might be viewed as political and that others in his FBI field office in Kansas City were concerned it was a witch hunt.

Faruqui, a former federal prosecutor himself, at one point also quoted aloud from the Justice Department Manual, which stipulates that prosecutors should not take overt investigative or prosecutorial steps intended to affect or influence the outcome of an election.

“Why did this have to be charged in October 2026?” he asked out loud, noting there was no concern with the statute of limitations expiring in the near future.

“There was simply no other event on the calendar, except for the midterm elections,” he said. He added that he refused to bury his head in the sand and pretend the timing was not an issue.

“I will not lobotomize myself in this way,” he added.

The case against Floris and Benavides hinged on testimony they had provided to the House Judiciary Committee in July and September 2023.

In particular, it focused on an FBI counterintelligence operation by the Foreign Influence Task Force known as “Round River,” which prosecutors said was focused on collecting “derogatory informant reporting on, among other things, Hunter Biden, to flag the reporting as Russian disinformation.”

Floris served as the deputy assistant director of the FITF from mid-2019 through mid-2022, while Benavides served as its section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election, according to the complaint.

In those roles, Floris and Benavides provided defensive briefings to Sens. Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson in August 2020, and this ultimately led the House Judiciary Committee to summon the pair to testify about three years later.

During the three-day hearing on the case, problems with the strength of the evidence and the lack of adequate investigation came to light.

In order to show probable cause in a false statements case, prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendants made false statements, that they did so knowingly and willfully, and that those statements were material.

Faruqui ticked through each of the three elements of the offense on Monday, finding that the government had failed to meet each threshold.

He compared and contrasted the government’s complaint with prior false statement cases where the elements of the offense had been met, citing the cases against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

“It’s clear to me the rushed investigation had a goal. It was a rush to charge — and that is a problem,” he said.

During his testimony, Witt acknowledged, for instance, that the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee had refused to allow FBI agents to interview congressional staffers who had been present for Floris and Benavides’ testimony — a crucial step needed to establish materiality in the case.

The only person he was ultimately allowed to speak with was Steve Castor, the general counsel for the House Judiciary Republicans, who acknowledged he had not witnessed Benavides’ testimony or reviewed the transcript. Witt did not speak with anyone on behalf of the committee’s Democrats.

Career prosecutors later realized the potentially fatal mistake and tried to raise it before the case was charged. In a taped conversation released to defense lawyers by the government, Carlton Davis, a political appointee who is special counsel to U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, could be heard admitting the mistake.

“I have one issue that I’m getting hammered on over here,” Faruqui quoted Davis as saying. “I realize this is our f***-up.”

Faruqui also noted there were numerous errors in the original charging document compared with the superseding version he later dismissed — and even Witt himself made misstatements on the stand — misstatements he noted were not criminal because he did not think Witt intended to lie.

He openly pondered why the government had failed to pressure test the case before proceeding to charge it, and likened the three-day hearing to the equivalent of an indictment review.

Instead of working out the problems and the mistakes privately within the Justice Department, he said, those issues got worked out “in open court for the whole world to watch.”

He also lamented the collateral consequences that the case could have, noting it was practically “marketing material” for deterring people from joining the FBI’s ranks, and would have a “chilling effect” on Congress’ ability to take people’s testimony. In the future, he said, Congress can expect that more people will plead the Fifth Amendment, and be deterred from appearing voluntarily as Floris and Benavides both did.

Above all, he predicted the case would erode confidence in the Justice Department and said he also felt sorry not just for the defendants, but also for the career prosecutors and agents who were forced to participate.

“This case is dismissed,” he said. “I am sorry you have been dragged through this process.”

Jacob Rosen contributed to this report.

In:

FBI

Hunter Biden

An hour-by-hour guide to election night poll closings

2026-11-02T17:00:15.307Z / CNN

It’s almost Election Day, and the balance of power in Washington is at stake as Americans vote to determine control of the Senate and House of Representatives — plus, settle races for governor and decide many other key issues.

This is a comprehensive guide to poll closing times across the United States on election night, with analysis on when to expect results in the key Senate races that will shape the balance of power—relying on data on when CNN previously called statewide elections in recent years.

Click or tap the state name to see when statewide presidential, Senate and governor races were called by CNN in previous races from 2022 to 2025. All times in this piece are in Eastern Time.

Polls in most of Florida close at 7 p.m. ET, and counties will start reporting mail and early votes almost immediately. The state counts quickly — in 2024 about 84% of the vote was reported by 8 p.m., when polls in the western part of the state closed. But because those votes are from early and mail ballots, they’re typically more Democratic than the final results. Virtually all of the state’s votes were reported by midnight.

Most Georgia counties report early and/or mail votes first. Rural counties in Georgia report more quickly, which can make the results appear more Republican-leaning for much of the first few hours of the night. But the state largely finishes reporting quickly. In 2024, they had only 2% left to count at midnight ET, and less than 1% left by 5 a.m.

In 2024 only about 10% of the vote was reported in the first hour after polls closed and less than 80% was in after three hours. Many counties report early or mail ballots first. In 2024, the state stopped reporting at around 3:20 a.m. ET Wednesday, with about 2% of the vote left to count.

Mail and early votes are expected to be reported first in North Carolina, shortly after polls close. They’ll be followed by Election Day results. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris led for about the first hour. That year, about 99% was in by 2:30 a.m. ET, when the state stopped reporting for the night. But there will be fewer votes to count after Election Day this year as the state ended its grace period for mail ballots.

Early results in Ohio typically tilt more Democratic than the final results, as counties generally report absentee and early votes first. In 2024, the state reached 90% reporting by 11 p.m. ET and 98% early Wednesday morning. But Ohio ended its grace period for mail ballots, so there will be fewer votes to count after Election Day.

Key Senate race: Maine

The state of Maine doesn’t centrally report votes on election night. That means reporters need to gather results from nearly 500 municipalities around the state. In 2024, it took until Wednesday afternoon for 90% of the vote to be reported. Several write-in candidates filed for the state’s Senate race this cycle, so if no candidate wins a majority of ballots cast, the election would be determined by a ranked-choice tabulation. That likely wouldn’t take place until late next week.

In 2024, about half of Mississippi’s votes were reported by 10 p.m. ET. Mississippi requires an excuse to vote early in-person or by mail, so the vast majority of the vote is cast on Election Day. But mail ballots postmarked by Election Day can be received until November 10. In 2024, about 13% of the state’s vote was uncounted by noon on Wednesday.

New Hampshire’s votes are only reported at the local level. The state has very little mail balloting, so the reporting pattern is more a function of which towns are included in the count at different times. In 2024, early results came from more Democratic towns than Republican ones, and the state didn’t reach 90% reporting until early Wednesday.

Polls in most of Texas close at 8 p.m. ET. Because most Texans vote before Election Day, more than 60% of its votes in 2024 were in by the time the polls at the western end of the state closed at 9 p.m. Those early reports were rosier for Harris than the final results, but even so, Trump had a nine-point lead after the first hour. The state hit 90% reporting after midnight. The state accepts postmarked ballots until Wednesday but voters need an excuse to vote by mail.

Most Iowa counties report their absentee votes first, which can result in a Democratic lead early in the night. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris led in Iowa for essentially the whole first hour, even as she lost the state by 13 points. That year, 90% of the state’s votes were reported before midnight ET, with 99% reported by late morning Wednesday.

In 2024, about 30% of Kansas’ votes were reported before 9 p.m. ET, when polls close in the western part of the state. Since most counties report absentee votes first, early results can appear to be more Democratic leaning than the end of night results. While President Donald Trump won the state by 16 points in 2024, his lead was less than six points at 10 p.m. While Kansas reported 96% of its votes by 1 a.m., the state accepts properly postmarked mail ballots until Friday.

While most polls in Michigan close at 8 p.m. ET, the state reported less than 10% of its votes in 2024 before polls closed statewide at 9 p.m. Reporting in Michigan varies significantly by county and locality, but in 2024, votes were more Democratic early in the evening. But by midnight, the results were leaning Republican, until the Democratic stronghold of Wayne County, home to Detroit, released hundreds of thousands of votes starting at around 4 a.m.

Hennepin County is the state’s largest county by population, home to Minneapolis and heavily Democratic. The county typically reports the vast majority of its votes all at once. In 2022, that report came at 10:10 p.m. ET, but in 2024 it didn’t come until 11:30 p.m. That’s largely why early results Minnesota can be significantly more Republican than the final margin. The state groups pre-election ballots with results from polling places, and is nearly entirely reported by sunrise on Wednesday.

Reporting in Nebraska can lean significantly more Democratic than final margins for hours, as early and mail ballots are generally reported first. In 2024, results got closer to the final margin by about 2 a.m. ET. Results actually end the night more Republican than the final margin, as Douglas County, the state’s largest, doesn’t report mail ballots received on Election Day, typically a heavily Democratic batch, until Friday.

Alaska expects their first report around 1 a.m. ET, when the last polls close. On election night, the state will report Election Day votes, early in-person votes cast before October 29 and some mail votes. But Alaska typically has about 15-25% of its vote left to count, and it could be a week until more mail votes are reported. Properly postmarked mail ballots can be received until November 13. And if a ranked-choice tabulation is necessary, the winner might not be known until November 18.

Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in bid to get California to set aside ballots from 20,000 alleged noncitizens

Updated on: November 2, 2026 / 11:58 AM EST / CBS News

Washington — The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in its effort to force California election workers to set aside mail ballots from thousands of people it claims are not U.S. citizens.

The Justice Department’s request for emergency relief came after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to order California officials to segregate the ballots cast by more than 20,000 people included on a government list of suspected noncitizens.

More than 6 million mail ballots have been returned statewide as of Sunday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Voting has been underway in California since early October. There are more than23 million registered voters in the state.

The emergency appeal to the high court came in the fast-moving legal battle unfolding in the run-up to Tuesday’s elections. The Trump administration so far has not been successful in convincing lower courts to require the ballots at issue to be put aside.

But in the request to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the government is seeking a “modest remedy” that will ensure any ballots cast by people who are not American citizens do not “debase or dilute valid votes.”

“Once California commingles the challenged ballots with lawful ones, there is no way to get the challenged ballots back,” he wrote in a filing. “The only way to preserve the district court’s ability to grant relief to the United States after a full merits proceeding, therefore, is to segregate the challenged ballots now.”

The dispute arose after the Justice Department sent letters to California’s secretary of state and the top elections official in Los Angeles County with a list of 20,000 people it claimed were registered to vote but not U.S. citizens, and demanded any ballots returned by them be set aside and not tabulated until their citizenship could be verified.

But the officials have expressed concerns about the accuracy of the list and the potential for eligible voters to be disenfranchised.

The Justice Department sued California and Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder and county clerk, and sought a court order requiring the ballots to be segregated.

But on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge David Carter rejected the Trump administration’s request for a temporary restraining order blocking election workers from counting ballots from the alleged noncitizens.

“Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest favors their protection,” Carter, appointed by President Bill Clinton, said. “Individuals who have met the requirements of California’s voter registration laws must not be deprived of a core right merely because of unfounded allegations stemming from a procedure rife with uncertainty and errors.”

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit divided 2-1 on Friday in denying a Justice Department request to require the ballots to be separated and not counted pending citizenship verification.

Trump’s California ballot appeal puts Supreme Court in center of fight over allegations of noncitizen voting

2026-11-02T16:58:25.604Z / CNN Politics

President Donald Trump on Monday urged the Supreme Court to force California to set aside potentially thousands of ballots the Justice Department claims may have been cast by noncitizens, a longshot request that multiple lower courts have rejected.

The eve-of-election appeal puts the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in the position of weighing in on Trump’s sweeping allegations of widespread noncitizen voting based on an uncertain record and an exceedingly fast timeline.

Even in emergency cases, the court often takes weeks to decide high-profile controversies.

Tens of millions of voters have already cast early ballots nationwide.

“This office has been informed that the United States has identified more than 20,000 individuals who appear to be registered to vote in California based on publicly available information at the time that information was received, but who, in the United States’ view, are likely not U.S. citizens,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court.

Sauer, the Trump administration’s top appellate attorney, urged the court to grant the “modest remedy” of setting aside any ballots cast by those individuals until the allegations can be resolved.

But lower courts have rejected that argument, and the timing of the administration’s appeal made the request a tall order.

On Friday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals barred the administration from intervening in California’s mail-in ballot counting, concluding that the federal government has no power to dictate to states how to run elections.

“If the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts,” the appeals court wrote in a 2-1 decision that was issued by US Circuit Judges Mark Bennett, a Trump nominee, and Gabriel Sanchez, who was named to the bench by former President Joe Biden.

Timing was another reason why the 9th Circuit rejected Trump.

“I assume the Solicitor General’s office took much more caution with its representations of the facts, which took the weekend to develop,” said Derek Muller, an election law expert at Notre Dame Law School.

The appeal, he noted, “is more careful than some of the statements made in the earlier stages of the litigation,” but that the timing of the request could lead the court to reject it without explanation.

DOJ has argued the federal government has a constitutional interest in ensuring that only citizens vote. It also claims that California’s failure to investigate the registered voters the administration has flagged is frustrating enforcement of the federal criminal law banning noncitizen voting.

California and voting rights groups have countered that the federal government’s past claims of noncitizen voters have not withstood scrutiny, that the current claims are based on fuzzy evidence that risks disenfranchising citizens and that the Trump administration doesn’t have legal authority to tell state officials how to handle the issue. Those are arguments that found purchase in lower federal courts that ruled against Trump.

“The district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California’s established voter-eligibility procedures,” the 9th Circuit wrote Friday. “In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement.”

In his dissent, US Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay noted that the Trump administration was asking only to halt the mixing of ballots cast by citizens and alleged noncitizens. Once those ballots are processed, all sides agree, it would be impossible to separate them.

“Throughout history, federal courts have acted to protect the voting and civil rights of our citizens by enjoining state action that violates the law,” wrote Bumatay, a Trump nominee. “And common sense also tells us that the federal government shouldn’t have to sit on its hands while a state allows the violation of federal law, especially when the integrity of federal elections is at stake.”

The appeals court also raised an issue that could be decisive for the Supreme Court. Under a legal theory known as the “Purcell principle,” the justices have long warned against federal courts weighing in at the last minute to change the rules of an election.

Trump has had a mixed record with emergency election appeals at the Supreme Court. Most notably, the justices in September rejected the president’s attempt to give the US Postal Service extraordinary power to withhold certain mail ballots. But the court sided with the Department of Homeland Security days later, allowing it to continue providing controversial citizenship data to state election officials.

“The federal government continues to press the same arguments, despite repeatedly coming up short,” said Jon Miller, chief program officer at Public Rights Project, which is part of the legal team fighting the Justice Department. “This case has bounced between the appellate and district courts – and every time, the courts have found the Justice Department wasn’t entitled to the relief it was seeking.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

Supreme Court to hear religious liberty fight over Colorado’s universal preschool program

2026-11-02T13:03:32-0500 / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday is set to hear a dispute over religious rights when it weighs whether Colorado can exclude Catholic schools from its universal preschool program over their refusal to enroll students from families that don’t adhere to the church’s teachings on marriage and sex.

The case, known as St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, is the latest clash over religious liberty and efforts to protect gay and transgender people from discrimination.

If the Catholic plaintiffs prevail, the decision would join a line of recent rulings in which the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with religious institutions challenging their exclusion from state programs, opening the door for more public dollars to flow to religious schools.

“This is a program that was sold to them in Colorado as being universal, every child in the state would benefit,” Amanda Dixon, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Catholic preschools and families in the case, said of her clients. “Yet they’ve had multiple children now go through preschool who haven’t been able to benefit because they feel religiously obligated to send their kids to Catholic schools. They can’t get the same benefit that everyone in the state is getting.”

Colorado’s universal preschool program

Colorado voters approved a ballot measure in 2020 to provide state funding for a new program that intended to make preschool “widely available for free” to all 4-year-olds in the state.

Families are reimbursed for the cost of 15 hours of preschool per week, which amounts to more than $6,000 per year. The state uses a mixed-delivery system, meaning public, private, faith-based and secular preschools can participate. Those that do must sign a contract and meet state quality standards.

The statute that created the universal preschool program also imposed a nondiscrimination rule. It requires participating preschools to provide eligible children with an “equal opportunity to enroll,” regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income level or disability.

Colorado estimates there are roughly 40,000 children who are eligible for universal preschool across nearly 2,000 providers.

When the program was being implemented, the Archdiocese of Denver, which oversees 34 Catholic preschools, raised concerns about the nondiscrimination requirement and its ability to comply without compromising its religious beliefs, particularly on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Catholic providers sought a religious exemption to the mandate, since they only admit families that align with the Catholic Church’s teachings, including on sexual identity, marriage and family.

But the state denied the request and told the Archdiocese at the time that while it can give enrollment preference to its members, it cannot “discriminate against children or families in violation of state statute.” The preschool program’s regulations, however, no longer allow faith-based providers to limit enrollment to their congregants.

As a result, none of the preschools that the Archdiocese oversees participate in the universal preschool program.

In August 2023, the Archdiocese, two Catholic parishes with preschools and parents of preschool-age children filed a lawsuit, arguing that their exclusion violated the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause.

The Catholic schools said that the mandate violated a 2022 Supreme Court decision in a case involving a tuition-assistance program in Maine. In that decision, the high court ruled that the state’s exclusion of religious schools from the program violated the First Amendment.

The plaintiffs also said that the state treated them differently when refusing to grant them exemptions to the nondiscrimination rule, since Colorado had granted exceptions for secular conduct by allowing preschool providers to prioritize enrollment for students from low-income families and with disabilities, but not religious conduct.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the state, finding that the sexual orientation and gender identity provisions of the nondiscrimination rule are neutral and apply generally to providers participating in the universal preschool program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision.

The fight before the Supreme Court

In papers with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Archdiocese and Catholic parishes argue that they are being unfairly excluded from the universal preschool program because of their religious exercise.

“This case is about whether states can do things like promise a universal program and then leave religious folks out,” Dixon said.

Catholic families, she said, “don’t want to be excluded from the ability to participate in this universal program just because they’ve chosen a Catholic program.”

The plaintiffs argued that the state has allowed more than 1,000 other preschools to serve 4-year-olds in specific communities by creating exceptions from the very provision it is saying the Catholic schools must follow.

The state allows preschools to prioritize enrollment for children with certain disabilities or who are living in poverty, conflicting with the requirement that eligible children have equal access to preschool services regardless of income level or disability, the Archdiocese argued.

Lawyers also said certain preschools can give enrollment preference to children of color or who are from families in the LGBTQ community.

“It was billed as universal, and instead we’re the ones that are being discriminated [against] because we’ve chosen our Catholic faith and a Catholic education for our children,” said Lisa Sheley, who, with her husband Daniel, is a plaintiff in the case.

The couple’s children attend school in St. Mary’s Catholic Parish, and they estimated that they have lost out on roughly $24,000 in reimbursements from the universal preschool program. Erika Nagle, who is preparing to send her third child to St. Mary Catholic Parish’s preschool, said the program would’ve saved her family around $18,000.

“We’re being forced to pay the price because of our Catholic beliefs,” Nagle said. “And it’s just such a tough pill to swallow — it’s a double standard because you see other schools that have been granted exemptions for communities that they serve. But here come the Catholic schools wanting an exemption for the communities that they serve, and they’re being denied.”

The Catholic parishes said that because Colorado excluded them from the universal preschool program because of their religious exercise, its actions should be evaluated under the most stringent form of judicial scrutiny. The state, they said, has failed to show it has a compelling interest in excluding religious schools from the program.

“The inevitable result of Colorado’s thumb on the scale is that more Colorado children will be funneled toward preschools that share Colorado’s perspective on matters of sex and marriage,” they said in a filing.

The Trump administration is backing the Catholic plaintiffs in the case.

But Colorado officials defending the program said religious preschools that participate can teach and develop curricula according to their faith. They just have to comply with the same “equal opportunity” mandate that applies to the other providers, which “requires all preschools — secular and religious alike — to deliver publicly-funded services without excluding families based on protected-class status,” they said.

The Catholic preschools want to receive public funding without following the nondiscrimination requirement, which would allow them to turn away students based on their or their parents’ sexual orientation or gender identity, the state said.

“When the state is putting its stamp on something and then the entity is able to say, ‘You don’t belong,’ that communicates something,” said Scott Skinner-Thompson, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. “Even if there is a second-best option, it still deeply negatively impacts the people who are turned away and have to go look for that second-best option.”

Skinner-Thompson said nothing in Colorado’s law requires the schools participating in the universal preschool program to change what they teach.

“Colorado isn’t telling any of those schools what to believe or what not to believe, what to practice or what not to practice,” he said. “All they’re saying is, if you want to have a preschool and get this subsidy, please accept LGBTQ kids and families.”

Colorado officials argued in a filing with the Supreme Court that the Archdiocese and Catholic preschools are asking it to allow them to receive public dollars on terms that are different from the ones applied to every other participating preschool. Under those terms, they would be allowed to exclude families based on protected-class status.

“The Constitution,” the state said, “does not support that result.”

El-Sayed’s silence over mom’s FBI questioning raises transparency concerns

The Michigan Democratic Senate candidate has sought to distance himself from his mother’s ties to the IARA

By Pedro B Rodriguez-Aparicio | Fox News

Published November 2, 2026 2:33pm EST

El-Sayed is ‘incredibly defensive’ over family’s alleged Muslim Brotherhood ties: Democratic strategist

Fox News contributors Karl Rove and Melissa DeRosa discuss Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed’s response to questions about his family’s alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood on ‘The Story.’

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing renewed scrutiny from Republican critics over his mother’s questioning by federal investigators more than two decades ago as part of an investigation into an Islamic charity where she worked.

El-Sayed’s Republican opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., accused the Democratic candidate of misleading Michigan voters about his views on the Muslim Brotherhood, pointing to reported associations involving members of El-Sayed’s family.

El-Sayed previously told Fox News that he has “never been” and will “never be” a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Fox News Digital is not aware of any direct ties between El-Sayed and the organization.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

El-Sayed’s campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

CONTROVERSY OVER ABDUL EL-SAYED’S FAMILY TIES TO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IGNORED, DOWNPLAYED BY LIBERAL MEDIA

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Abdul-El-Sayed-Kamala-Harris.jpg

Former Vice President Kamala Harris joins Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed for a roundtable discussion at Birth Detroit.(David Guralnick/Pool/Getty Images)

“Michiganders cannot trust Abdul El-Sayed. He lies about his physician credentials, his family life, and about how much his disastrous policies will cost Michigan’s families,” a spokesperson for Rogers told Fox News Digital. “Tell the truth, Abdul.”

El-Sayed has not publicly addressed the details of his mother’s questioning by federal investigators or the raid on the offices of the Islamic charity where she worked since the Washington Free Beacon resurfaced the reports last month.

Federal authorities raided the Missouri office of the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA), where El-Sayed’s mother, Fatten Elkomy, worked in 2004, according to the Columbia Daily Tribune. The newspaper reported that federal agents questioned Elkomy for approximately three hours during the investigation.

In 2008, IARA was shut down by the federal government in connection with alleged violations of federal sanctions and terrorism-related financing restrictions, including allegations involving funding for Islamic militants in Afghanistan and terrorist groups such as the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Elkomy was not charged in connection with the investigation, according to multiple reports. Fox News Digital has found no evidence that she facilitated transfers of funds to terrorist organizations.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

The U.S. Treasury Department did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment about the government’s findings concerning IARA’s alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood or why Elkomy was questioned by federal investigators.

TRUMP LINKS MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE ABDUL EL-SAYED TO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: ‘HE’S A CON MAN’

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6407209406112

During his Senate campaign, El-Sayed has sought to distance himself from his mother’s reported political associations, emphasizing that she did not raise him.

El-Sayed was raised in Michigan by his father and stepmother after his parents divorced when he was 3.

“I have no ties. We have no ties,” El-Sayed told NBC’s Tom Llamas in October. “I have never had these conversations with my mother, I wasn’t raised by my mother.”

The scrutiny of El-Sayed extended to the candidate’s fundraisers and campaign events with Islamic leaders, some of whom have reported ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or have been accused of making antisemitic or hateful remarks. The controversy has also included El-Sayed’s campaign appearances with left-wing streamer Hasan Piker.

His former Democratic primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., endorsed Rogers on Sunday, citing concerns about El-Sayed’s approach to the safety of Michigan’s Jewish community and his repeated campaign appearances with Piker, who previously said, “America deserved 9/11.”

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

“I don’t like a democratic nominee for U.S. senate campaigning and standing with someone who’s saying that America deserved 9/11,” Stevens said during a CNN interview Sunday night.

El-Sayed declined to comment on Piker’s remarks during an April interview with POLITICO but later disavowed them during an August appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

EL-SAYED ERUPTS AT GOP RIVAL OVER MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ACCUSATIONS IN FIERY SENATE DEBATE

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/el-sayed-hugs-supporter.png

Democratic nominee for Senate Abdul El-Sayed greets supporters during a campaign event on Oct. 14, 2026, in Detroit.(Paul Sancya/AP Photo)

Amy Mek, founder of the RAIR Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on investigating groups it identifies as connected to terrorism, echoed Rogers’ concerns about national security and El-Sayed’s silence in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Mek, who previously testified before Congress about terrorism-related threats in the United States, told Fox News Digital that she believes El-Sayed’s silence on his mother’s questioning reflects political considerations.

She also pointed to social media posts by El-Sayed’s half-sister, Eman Abdelhadi, who wrote on X in 2012 that members of their family have “long been” members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/clear.gif

In a separate 2013 post that remains publicly available on her account, Abdelhadi said she was “praying for all my family that supports the #MB.”

Abdelhadi later recalled her family’s fear of FBI surveillance in a 2016 article titled, “Queer, Muslim, and Unwelcome at the ‘New Stonewall.’”

El-Sayed has not publicly addressed his half-sister’s statements in detail but called the tweets “not serious” during his NBC interview, accusing Llamas of “using hearsay evidence from a tweet” to question him about his family’s reported connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.