Rogers uses religious shortcuts to attack El-Sayed in Michigan

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 22, 2026

By using religious identity to question Abdul El-Sayed's loyalty, Mike Rogers employs a rhetorical shortcut that threatens the legitimacy of the democratic process and the American Constitution.

The process employed by Mike Rogers is flawed. He is not conducting a vetting process. He is conducting a character assassination based on a proxy. Rogers uses faith as a substitute for constitutional fidelity. This does not protect the Senate. He erodes the legitimacy that allows a loser to respect the election result. When a candidate suggests a religion makes a citizen a threat, he is not arguing policy. He argues that the Constitution does not apply equally to all people.

The shortcut of association

We must first examine the record of the debate. The clash reached a peak on October 21, 2026, during a debate in Michigan. Mike Rogers alleged that Abdul El-Sayed has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Rogers pointed to a 2012 letter that El-Sayed signed.

This is a classic rhetorical shortcut. Guilt by association is the belief that a person is defined by the actions of an alleged group. It is a lazy tool. It avoids the hard work of proving a specific act of disloyalty.

Fox News reports the letter asked President Morsi to purge the police force. Rogers used this to claim El-Sayed wanted to defund the police in Egypt. He claimed the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in five Muslim countries and another six different countries.

Clarín reported that El-Sayed rejected these accusations, calling them shameful. He argued that questioning his commitment to the Constitution was beneath his opponent. He noted that the Constitution guarantees the right to pray as one chooses. Rogers responded by framing the issue as one of ideology.

"I know you want to make this about you being a victim," Rogers said. "This is about an ideology."

The attack is not an isolated event. In Caro, Michigan, GOP activist Thomas Teepell challenged El-Sayed to "disavow the Muslim Brotherhood," as Semafor notes. The record shows a coordinated strategy. Both Teepell and Rogers use foreign Islamist ties as a proxy for questioning constitutional fidelity. This playbook is designed to plant a seed of doubt about a candidate's primary allegiance. It is a symptom of a state electoral machinery where national figures and PAC spending polarize local disputes.

The mechanism of dual loyalty

This tactic relies on the mechanism of dual loyalty. Dual loyalty is the accusation that a person's religious ties create a conflict of interest with their national allegiance. It is a mechanism that has a long and ugly history in American politics.

The 1960 United States presidential election provides the exact parallel. In that race, the religious identity of John F. Kennedy was used as a proxy for his allegiance. Opponents questioned whether his Catholic faith meant he owed a higher loyalty to the Pope in Rome. Kennedy had to confront the insinuation that his faith made him a foreign agent. He won by insisting that his private faith did not dictate his public duty. He neutralized the religious litmus test by anchoring his identity in the law.

We have seen this mechanism repeat in recent years. The 2008 United States presidential election saw similar questioning of Barack Obama. Critics used his name and perceived foreign ties to suggest he was not truly American. This is the same tool Rogers is using today. It is a way to make a candidate a stranger in their own land.

The 2000 United States presidential election echoed this. That race showed how accusations regarding character and loyalty can be used to sway voters. When we stop judging a candidate by their actions, we stop being a republic of laws. We become a republic of suspicions.

The weaponization of process

The most dangerous part of Rogers' attack is his attempt to weaponize administrative process. During the debates, Rogers questioned whether El-Sayed could obtain a security clearance. A security clearance is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified information.

By bringing this into a campaign debate, Rogers turns a bureaucratic tool into a political weapon. He suggests that the mere presence of a religious identity creates a security risk. This is where I must be cold toward the side I agree with. Abdul El-Sayed has relied too heavily on adjectives. He calls the attacks "shameful" and "beneath" his opponent. That is a reaction, not a reasoning.

To defeat this tactic, he cannot simply play the victim. He must dismantle the logic. He should have addressed the 2012 letter with surgical precision. He should have explained why calling for police reform in a foreign dictatorship is not an act of allegiance. By pivoting to the "shame" of the question, he leaves the accusation hanging in the air. He treats the attack as a matter of manners rather than a matter of law.

When you use a tool to disqualify an opponent based on their faith, you build a tool for your enemies. If the standard for a security clearance is "no association with any group the other side dislikes," no one is safe. The process becomes the prize.

The goal of an election should be to find the best person for the job. It should not be to find the person with the cleanest genealogical tree. When Mike Rogers suggests that faith is a barrier to loyalty, he is not defending the Constitution. He is attacking the principle of equal citizenship. This is a failure of leadership and a failure of process.

The use of religious identity as a litmus test for patriotism is a bankrupt strategy. It will face diminishing rhetorical returns as candidates pivot back to constitutional rights. However, the attempt to anchor political attacks in the machinery of security clearances may become permanent. Mike Rogers has chosen to trade the long-term legitimacy of the American system for a short-term campaign advantage. That is a bad bargain for Michigan and a dangerous precedent for the country.

Rogers uses religious shortcuts to attack El-Sayed in Michigan

The shortcut of association

The mechanism of dual loyalty

The weaponization of process

Sources