POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: Trump’s ‘Jihadist’ Label Against Abdul El
The Claim During a campaign rally in Port Huron, Michigan, on October 25, 2026, President Donald Trump leveled severe accusations against Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Trump...
The Claim
During a campaign rally in Port Huron, Michigan, on October 25, 2026, President Donald Trump leveled severe accusations against Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Trump explicitly labeled El-Sayed a “jihadist” and a Muslim Brotherhood member, suggesting that the candidate poses a national security threat to the United States. The President further alleged that El-Sayed intends to implement Shariah law in the U.S. and compared him to the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.
These remarks, which were delivered to a large audience and amplified via social media, have sparked significant public concern regarding the candidate’s background and political affiliations. Trump’s rhetoric specifically targeted El-Sayed’s past writings and a 2012 letter signed by the candidate, which the President characterized as evidence of extremist support.
The Details & Investigation
Our investigation into these claims reveals that they constitute a clear case of disinformation—the deliberate use of deceptive, fabricated, and inflammatory narratives to manipulate public perception. The term “jihadist” is defined as an individual who advocates for the use of military force to promote Islam in government and society. There is no evidence in El-Sayed’s public record, policy platform, or personal history to support this characterization. Experts in religious studies, including Mohammad Hassan Khalil of Michigan State University, have dismissed the application of this term to El-Sayed as anti-Muslim bigotry and fearmongering.
The claim regarding El-Sayed’s membership in the Muslim Brotherhood is similarly unfounded. The Muslim Brotherhood is a complex, decentralized organization with various international branches. El-Sayed has consistently disavowed the group, and his political positions—such as his advocacy for LGBTQ rights—are fundamentally incompatible with the group’s conservative ideology. Academic experts, including Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, have noted that the candidate’s political stances would be antithetical to the organization’s core tenets, rendering the claim of membership a fabrication.
The President’s reliance on a 2012 letter signed by El-Sayed as proof of extremism is a misleading decontextualization. The letter in question was a statement signed by several Egyptian-American community leaders supporting the democratic legitimacy of Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, following the ousting of authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak. While the letter contained controversial language regarding the media and police, it was a partisan expression of support for a democratic transition, not an endorsement of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology or violent extremism. Misrepresenting this political act as an endorsement of terrorism is a calculated distortion of historical context.
Ultimately, the investigation confirms that these claims are not merely unintentional misinformation but are part of a coordinated effort to utilize anti-Muslim tropes to discredit a political opponent. By conflating democratic support for a foreign leader with domestic extremism, the rhetoric serves to incite fear rather than inform the electorate.
The Verdict
The claim that Abdul El-Sayed is a “jihadist” and a “Muslim Brotherhood member” is rated FALSE. There is zero evidence to support these labels, and they are contradicted by the candidate’s own statements, his political platform, and expert analysis of his history.
This rhetoric represents a deliberate attempt to deceive voters through the use of inflammatory, evidence-free accusations. Because the claims rely on the intentional distortion of historical documents and the weaponization of religious identity for political gain, they are classified as disinformation.
Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).
