Category: USA Politics

Top congressional Democrats, party campaign arms and allied groups are suing President Donald Trump and his administration over a sweeping order he signed this week that would increase federal involvement in elections.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., along with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee, filed the lawsuit Thursday.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeks to block Trump’s executive order signed Tuesday targeting mail-in voting and voter eligibility, as Senate Republicans continue debating the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER OVERHAULING MAIL-IN VOTING IN MAJOR ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH

“The American people are fed up with Republicans’ price-spiking, health care-gutting agenda and are ready to vote them out,” Schumer, Jeffries and the committee chairs said in a joint statement. “That’s why Donald Trump is desperately trying to rig our elections by making it harder to vote for seniors, Americans with disabilities, members of the military, rural communities and other working families who rely on vote-by-mail. This move is blatantly unconstitutional, and we will fight against it.”

“We are taking action to challenge Trump’s executive order to protect the right to vote and ensure every eligible American can make their voice heard at the ballot box,” they added.

Trump has warned Republicans that if they cannot pass the SAVE America Act — which is unlikely given unified Democratic opposition in the Senate — the GOP could face major losses in the upcoming midterm elections.

GOP TRIGGERS MARATHON SENATE FIGHT TO EXPOSE DEMS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID BILL

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson fired back that, “Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots.”

“President Trump campaigned on securing our elections and the American people sent him back to the White House to get the job done,” she said.

The executive order, signed earlier this week, reflects Trump taking matters into his own hands amid the political reality in Congress.

The order would create federal “citizenship lists” of U.S. citizens using government databases, require those lists to be shared with states before elections, and give the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) authority over mail-in voting logistics. It would also require voters to be enrolled with USPS to receive mail ballots.

The order would allow USPS to refuse delivery of ballots from people not on its approved list and impose new federal design and processing rules for mail-in ballot envelopes.

SENATE GOP EYES BLAME GAME AS TRUMP-BACKED SAVE ACT HEADS FOR DEFEAT

Democrats argue the order is unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it overrides states’ authority over elections, violates the separation of powers, breaches privacy laws and risks disenfranchising millions of voters.

They argue Trump has “no such authority” to impose sweeping changes on elections nationwide.

“If permitted, the President’s actions would fundamentally alter the constitutional balance between the states and the federal government by allowing the executive branch to wield federal power to pressure states into adopting federal preferences for the conduct of elections,” they wrote in the lawsuit.

President Donald Trump has reportedly already fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to two sources familiar with the matter who spoke with Fox News Digital. 

Bondi met with Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday night ahead of his speech to the nation on the war in Iran where was reportedly informed of her ouster, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. 

One of those sources said that by the time Trump took his place behind the podium for the address, Bondi had already lost her job and was on her way back to Florida.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT SUBPOENAS AG BONDI IN PROBE OF EPSTEIN CASE ‘MISMANAGEMENT’

Trump is reportedly considering replacing Bondi with Environmental Protection Agency Director Lee Zelin, according to the sources familiar with the matter. Trump held a meeting with Zeldin at the White House Tuesday to discuss wildfire and prevention, where talks of the transition also unfolded, according to an individual familiar with the meeting. 

That source relayed to Fox News Digital that Zeldin would be a plausible replacement, adding that Trump could change his mind at any point. 

When asked about the alleged meetings and Bondi’s ouster, a White House source stopped short of confirming the information, but relayed it was “not cold.” 

The alleged ouster follows a recent The New York Times report detailing that Trump was preparing to replace Bondi with Zeldin as the president had become increasingly dissatisfied with her performance in the role. 

WHY KRISTI NOEM’S FIRING TOOK SO LONG AS SHE WRECKED DHS AND DAMAGED DONALD TRUMP

Asked about the meetings and Bondi’s alleged ouster on Wednesday evening, the White House directed Fox News Digital to the same comment the office provided to the Times defending Bondi. 

“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Trump’s comment states. 

The Department of Justice did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the matter. 

The alleged ouster came the same day Bondi accompanied Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday morning for oral arguments on the high-stakes birthright citizenship case. 

As a Homeland Security shutdown drags on, the top Senate Republican says Democrats are getting “zero” of the reforms they demanded.

Congressional Democrats have taken victory laps, viewing the outcome as a key win in their push for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). They have also accused congressional Republicans of caving to their demands.

While the Senate’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deal includes funding for ICE and much of CBP, it does not include the structural reforms Democrats spent the last 48 days pushing.

SENATE PASSES BILL TO FUND MOST OF DHS AFTER HOUSE GOP CAVES

When asked whether Republicans gave in, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” “No, we didn’t cave.”

“I mean, ultimately, what the Democrats did, you could say… this was all about ‘reforms,’ restrictions on ICE and CBP agents and what they could or couldn’t do,” Thune said. “They got none of that. They got zero of the reforms they were advocating for.”

Thune was responding to accusations from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that “House Republicans caved” after backing down from their push for a 60-day funding extension for the agency.

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES RAGE AGAINST SENATE DHS SHUTDOWN DEAL

Schumer argued that divisions in the GOP “derailed a bipartisan agreement” and said Democrats were clear in their objectives to “fund critical security, protect Americans, and provide no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”

“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer said.

Thune countered, “In the end, this was all about their left-wing base demanding that no funding be provided.”

HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER

“The good news for us is we saw this coming, and we pre-funded this last summer, so ICE and CBP are funded through the end of the fiscal year. Then we’ll add to those accounts and make sure they’re funded in future years,” Thune said.

Republicans, now with the backing of President Donald Trump, are eyeing the budget reconciliation process to fund immigration enforcement operations for the foreseeable future. It’s a tricky maneuver that would require full buy-in from Senate Republicans.

Trump lauded Republicans, including Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who originally torpedoed the Senate deal, for coming together to reopen most of DHS. He also noted that he would soon sign an executive order to pay, “ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security,” which comes as the funding plan currently wouldn’t pay immigration enforcement support staff.

“Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” Trump said on Truth Social. 

In the meantime, the shutdown is still ongoing. The Senate’s redo of its funding plan Thursday morning sets up another vote in the House, where there is still significant resistance among some hardline Republicans, and the House is not expected to return to Washington, D.C., until April 13.

President Donald Trump‘s presence at the Supreme Court this week may not sway the justices, who appeared skeptical of the president’s push to curb birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

But Trump’s historic appearance — no sitting president has attended oral arguments at the high court before — showcased the president’s great interest in his landmark effort to upend more than a century of legal precedent that allowed automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S.

And the president’s presence at the Supreme Court may pack a political punch by energizing MAGA voters ahead of the midterm elections, when Republicans will be defending their fragile House and Senate majorities.

INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS

“Immigration is the issue that has most defined Donald Trump during his time as a national political figure, and his record on border security remains one of the core accomplishments of his second term,” longtime Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News Digital.

Reed emphasized that “even if the Supreme Court does not side with his perspective in this particular case, the president is making clear that he is not abandoning his commitment to the broader issue.”

TRUMP MAKES HISTORIC APPEARANCE AT THE SUPREME COURT 

On his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order which declared that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on limited-duration visas would no longer be granted U.S. citizenship.

But the order never took effect, after it was quickly hit with a slew of lawsuits and was subsequently blocked by federal judges from coast to coast who argued it violated long-standing legal precedent.

The president on Wednesday stayed quiet until after he left the court, and after the arguments in the case concluded, before taking to social media to write, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

Most Americans appear to disagree.

Sixty-nine percent of voters support birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, according to a Fox News national poll conducted March 20-23.

EXPERTS FLAG ‘DISAPPOINTING’ QUESTIONS FROM JUSTICES IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

But there’s a wide partisan divide, with 91% of Democrats and three-quarters of independents but only 44% of Republicans supporting birthright citizenship in such cases.

A majority of Republicans questioned in the poll, 55%, disagreed. And among self-described MAGA Republicans, opposition edged up to 60%.

“Combating illegal immigration has always been President Trump’s strongest issue, and he’s made our borders more secure than they’ve ever been. He’s obviously fighting a lot of battles and birthright citizenship is one of them,” seasoned Republican communicator Tim Murtaugh told Fox News Digital.

Murtaugh, a veteran of Trump’s 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns, said “the president’s attendance at the oral arguments shows how much he cares about the issue, and draws a far brighter spotlight onto the illogic of birthright citizenship than would otherwise have happened if he hadn’t shown up.”

And Murtaugh sees the issue putting Democrats on defense in the midterms.

“It’s possible that the court will say that Congress must address the issue. If so, this would be highly relevant in the midterm elections because Democrats are very much going to be put on the defensive for their support of illegal aliens and lawlessness,” Murtaugh argued.

Immigration and border security were winning issues for Trump and Republicans and helped fuel their sweeping victories in the 2024 elections, when they won back the White House and the Senate and defended their House majority.

But in the wake of political backlash earlier this year over Trump’s unprecedented illegal immigration crackdown, polling on the issue raises warning signs for Republicans and suggests immigration may come back to take a bite out of the GOP in the midterms.

“Let’s be clear: Ending birthright citizenship is central to Trump’s broader radical agenda to target immigrant families,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin charged. “If Trump gets his way, overturning birthright citizenship will create chaos in our communities.”

Fox News’ Ashley Oliver and Victoria Balara contributed to this story.

FBI officials recently reached out to members of Congress to alert them to a cyber hack classified as a “major incident.”

Fox News is told that China is the culprit and that the breach could pose a threat to national security.

The FBI made this designation last week when notifying several members of Congress. 

This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.

FIRST ON FOX: A conservative legal group is calling on the federal government to overhaul how crime data is reported on college campuses, arguing that parents and students are being left in the dark about safety risks.

America First Legal (AFL) filed a supplemental petition on Thursday with the U.S. Department of Education, urging officials to create a centralized, publicly accessible database of campus crime logs nationwide.

The reason, AFL argues, is gaps in the Clery Act where schools are already required to maintain daily crime logs documenting reported incidents, but that information is scattered, inconsistent and often hard to access.

“AFL’s petition today brings a new level of accountability to college campuses,” Emily Percival, senior counsel at America First Legal, said in a press release. 

SIGN UP TO GET THE CAMPUS RADICALS NEWSLETTER

“Parents, students, and policymakers deserve the truth in real-time about the safety of college and university campuses. Today’s action is another step toward shining the light on the dangers that have festered at our academic institutions.”

The petition also calls for a new “Political and Religious Violence Transparency Report,” which would document incidents involving threats, assaults and harassment tied to political or religious beliefs, as well as the university’s response.

AFL is also pushing for penalties for schools that fail to comply, including fines of up to $71,545 per violation. 

The proposal comes as colleges nationwide have faced a surge in high-profile incidents involving protests turning violent, clashes between rival groups and reports of intimidation targeting students over political and religious views.

LA UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCANDAL LEADS TO CHARGES AS $22M SCHEME ALLEGEDLY DRAINED FUNDS MEANT FOR STUDENTS

From disruptive demonstrations that have led to arrests and property damage, to allegations of targeted harassment, campus shootings and assaults tied to ideological disputes, campus tensions have increasingly spilled into violence, prompting lawmakers and watchdog groups to question whether universities are fully disclosing the scope of the problem.

AFL argues current reporting rules under the Clery Act allow schools to obscure the true scope of campus disorder, particularly when it comes to protest-related violence.

The AFL has previously cited some examples of egregious behavior on college campuses, including the protest that broke out at the University of California at Berkeley during a Turning Point USA event, which led to multiple arrests as demonstrators attempted to breach police barricades. 

The unrest that unfolded at UC Berkeley prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation.

Major schools like the University of Michigan and Columbia University dealt with hostile environments during protests that addressed the war in Gaza. Because of protests causing safety and discrimination concerns for Jewish students, the Trump administration put a freeze on federal funding at some of these schools.

Fox News Digital’s Joshua Q. Nelson contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants appears to be in jeopardy following Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday. 

Supreme Court justices pursued what Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, described as a “disappointing” line of questioning. Liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s order, which the president has argued is necessary to end a “magnet” for illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children gain citizenship.

Lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment’s stipulation that individuals must be subject to U.S. jurisdiction to be American citizens means children of illegal immigrants are excluded from automatic citizenship. The administration pointed to “striking” numbers of illegal immigrants abusing current law through a type of birth tourism. Meanwhile, opposing lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Supreme Court precedent, particularly the Wong Kim Ark case, supports a broader interpretation that all those born on U.S. soil are automatic citizens.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Swearer said that while the oral arguments went “a little bit better than anticipated” for the administration in some regards, the day was a mixed bag for the government.

SAUER CITES ‘STRIKING’ FIGURES ON SECRETIVE BIRTH TOURISM IN HIGH-STAKES SCOTUS CASE

“Most people understood coming into this, and I suspect even the government understood coming into this, that this was probably going to be a bit of an uphill battle,” Swearer said.

She said conservative and liberal justices seemed hesitant about how the government would apply Trump’s order.

Swearer said, “We did see a lot of those types of questions,” adding, “I’m not sure they are actually that important to the overall doctrinal questions of, ‘What does the 14th Amendment citizenship clause actually mean?’”

Meanwhile, she said it was “a bit disappointing” not to see more pushback from the justices on the ACLU’s broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

While there was much discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case, which revolved around the citizenship of a child of legal Chinese immigrants, Swearer said she “was disappointed” not to see discussion of other legal precedent she believes is crucial.

ALITO INVOKES SCALIA ANALOGY IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

“The ACLU’s argument is essentially no one up until Donald Trump ever thought that this was a viable way of framing birthright citizenship. And the reality is when you look at decisions by other presidents during the 19th century, you actually did have executive branch decisions saying, ‘No, we’re not going to issue passports to this person, even though they were born in the United States because they weren’t born subject to our jurisdiction, because their parents weren’t lawfully or permanently present in the United States.’ And I think that’s important,” she said.

“I think that was one of the missed opportunities to really push back on the ACLU’s position, and it just didn’t come up in the same way that Wong Kim Ark did,” she added.

What does this mean for the future of Trump’s order? Swearer said that while the three liberal justices’ stances are obvious, she admitted, “It’s hard to know what to make of” the six other justices’ lack of questioning on what she believes are the more “foundational questions about the history and tradition” of the citizenship issue.

Despite this, Swearer said, “I do think there’s a path forward” for a Trump victory, though it would likely be narrow and partial.

INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS

“I would not quantify it, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see some sort of plurality of opinions splitting the baby somewhere,” she said.

Swearer speculated that possible routes the court could take include differentiating between illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders, delivering a partial victory for the administration, or deciding the question based on existing statute rather than attempting to interpret the language of the 14th Amendment, which would cut against Trump’s order.

“Maybe they split the baby that way,” she said, adding, “I think at the end of the day, there are just so many options for what this could look like.” 

A year ago today, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new round of global tariffs, escalating trade tensions with key allies and adversaries alike, raising fresh concerns about the outlook for the U.S. and global economy.

The “Liberation Day” tariffs were introduced as a broad set of import taxes that Trump said would correct long-standing trade imbalances and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign goods.

In the months that followed, markets experienced bouts of volatility as businesses and investors adjusted to the shifting trade landscape. Policymakers and economists, meanwhile, debated the longer-term impact on growth, inflation and global trade flows.

Many economists warned of potential consequences, including higher prices, slower growth and rising uncertainty for businesses and investors. 

TRUMP SAYS US WOULD BE ‘DESTROYED’ WITHOUT TARIFF REVENUE

But not everyone agreed.

“Trump proved 12 Nobel Prize economists wrong,” economist Stephen Moore told Fox News Digital.

“Inflation didn’t rise. Why? Because the tax cuts, deregulation and ‘drill, baby, drill’ policies lowered prices and offset the tariffs,” added Moore, a former Trump adviser and co-founder of the free-market advocacy group Unleash Prosperity.

But Moore’s view was not widely shared. Here’s a look back at what other economists said at the time.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs “masochistic,” saying they were the worst levy the U.S. had imposed in decades.

“Never before has an hour of Presidential rhetoric cost so many people so much,” Summers wrote on X. “The best estimate of the loss from tariff policy is now closer to $30 trillion or $300,000 per family of four.”

Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, said Trump had “gone full-on crazy” in the hours after the “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced.

“If you had any hopes that Trump would step back from the brink, this announcement, between the very high tariff rates and the complete falsehoods about what other countries do, should kill them,” Krugman, a former MIT and Princeton University professor, wrote in his Substack newsletter.

Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, warned that the tariffs would be “negative the world over,” in an interview with Ireland’s Newstalk.

She said Trump’s trade policy would weigh on global growth and carry broad consequences.

“It will not be good for the global economy, and it will not be good for those who impose the tariffs or those who retaliate,” Lagarde said.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz said Trump’s tariff threats have made the U.S. “a scary place to invest” and could unleash stagflation. Stagflation refers to a combination of slow economic growth and rising prices. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and former World Bank economist, warned in an interview with The Guardian that he does not see a strong economic outlook ahead.

“I cannot see a really robust economy,” said Joseph Stiglitz, former chair of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. “I see the global economy suffering greatly from the uncertainty that Trump poses.”

He also said the inflation triggered by the tariffs is moving in the wrong direction and that the only thing the Trump administration will succeed in doing is “to crater the economy.”

Jared Bernstein, the former White House chief economist under President Joe Biden, said the U.S. is a “large, dominant economy” that is relatively closed, meaning it relies less on trade than most countries.

“That means, as Trump has argued, we can hurt other countries more than they can hurt us,” Bernstein said. “But he hasn’t offered a clear rationale for why we should start a trade war with traditionally reliable partners like Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Europe.”

Bernstein said Trump may reverse course if mounting economic pressures—such as higher inflation, slower growth, falling stock prices and rising recession risks—intensify from the tariffs.

“So far, that may have been the approach in Trump’s first term; it doesn’t appear to be the approach this time around,” he said.

Allianz chief economic adviser Mohamed El-Erian called for clarity from the White House. “If we get clarity on this, this is an economy that can adjust,” he told FOX Business.

El-Erian, the former CEO of bond giant PIMCO, wrote on X that “the price action in global financial markets in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. tariff announcement points to major worries about global economic growth.”

Bill Gross, the co-founder of Pacific Investment Management Co., known as Pimco, said the latest round of tariffs is “similar to going off the gold standard in 1971″—an “epic” shift that markets won’t quickly recover from.

“It’s not something where you can time a market bottom quickly,” Gross told CNBC. “It’s something we’re going to have to live with as long as President Trump maintains this stance.”

Gross, dubbed the “Bond King,” added that he does not expect Trump to reverse course. “To be very blunt, President Trump is a macho male, and this macho male is not going to back down tomorrow simply because the Nasdaq is down 5%,” he said.

President Donald Trump called on the world’s countries to “build up some delayed courage” and “just take” the Strait of Hormuz while addressing the nation in a primetime speech on Iran Wednesday night. 

Movement in the strait, which is a narrow but crucial global oil trade passageway, has been greatly hampered by Iran, which the teetering country has held out as one of its bargaining chips. Iranian interference in the strait has significantly impaired the movement of oil tankers through the strait, causing global oil prices to rise.

Trump said that while the U.S. “imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won’t be taking any in the future,” the “countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage.”

He promised the U.S. “will be helpful,” but stressed that other countries “should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on.”

POLL POSITION: WHERE TRUMP STANDS AMONG AMERICANS AS HE FACES THE NATION IN PRIMETIME

The president shared two suggestions for countries that depend on oil passing through Hormuz.

“To those countries that can’t get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran … I have a suggestion. No. 1, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much. And No. 2, build up some delayed courage — should have done it before. Should have done it with us as we asked — go to the strait and just take it. Protect it. Use it for yourselves.”

He emphasized that other countries “must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it.”

Though signaling that the U.S. will not be moving to seize the strait itself, he said America’s heavy bombardment of the Iranian military, navy, infrastructure and national leadership has made it “easy” for other countries to do so.

TRUMP SAYS IRAN ‘NO LONGER A THREAT’ AFTER 32 DAYS — OUTLINES NEXT PHASE OF US WAR

After 32 days of joint U.S.-Israeli bombardment, Trump said “Iran has been essentially decimated.”

“The hard part is done, so it should be easy.”

Either way, the president asserted that “when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally.”

“It’ll just open up naturally,” he repeated, asserting that the surviving Iranian government is “going to want to be able to sell oil because that’s all they have to try and rebuild.”

PRESIDENT TRUMP VOWS US IS ‘VERY CLOSE’ TO FINISHING THE JOB ON IRAN: WE HOLD ‘ALL THE CARDS’

“It will resume the flowing and the gas prices will rapidly come back down. Stock prices will rapidly go back up,” he predicted.

Trump addressed the nation 32 days into the Iranian conflict, codenamed “Operation Epic Fury,” which he initially projected would take four to five weeks to complete. The president said the conflict is “very close” to being finished and that the U.S. is “on track” to complete all of its objectives.

“We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks,” he said, adding, “We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.”

Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing pushback from conservatives on social media and the Republican he’s running against over an appearance where he was accused of equating the “radicalism” of Iran with the “MAGA movement.”

“There are many people who see the downfall of the regime as a good thing, but the question of whether or not it was pursued legally, that’s a different question,” the progressive candidate told “America’s Newsroom” on Wednesday. El-Sayed was responding to controversy over a Washington Free Beacon report on leaked audio of him explaining why he shouldn’t take a public position on the death of former Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei because of people in Dearborn, Michigan, who are “sad.”

“Whether or not its worth $31 billion of our taxes and counting a billion dollars a day, that’s another thing. Whether or not we should be paying higher rates at the pump every single time we try to just get where we’re going and pump gas… that [is] a big question, and I’ll tell you what, there are a lot of people who are really sad about the fact that they thought that the era of foreign wars, of never-ending regime change wars were over, and here we are.”

During another point in the interview, El-Sayed was asked, “Would we all not be better off if the radicals in Iran did not make decisions for the people?”

DEMOCRATS TEAM UP WITH FAR-LEFT STREAMER WHO ONCE SAID ‘AMERICA DESERVED 9/11’

El-Sayed responded, “Radicalism of any sort is bad, which is why this MAGA movement taking us into yet another war in my lifetime, and I’m only 41, is so ridiculous.”

El-Sayed quickly faced pushback from Republicans who accused him of not sufficiently explaining his comments in the leaked audio and equating the ayatollah’s regime with the Trump administration. 

“Democrats in 2026,” GOP communicator Matt Whitlock posted on X. “Abdul Al Sayed is asked point blank if the world is better off without the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. And gives a word salad about how the Ayatollah’s radicalism and Trump’s MAGA support are the same.”

“Democrat Abdul El-Sayed compares the Trump administration to the Ayatollah,” the Republican National Committee account posted on X. 

“What?!” Mark Levin Show producer Rich Sementa posted on X. 

MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE RESPONDS TO BACKLASH OVER KHAMENEI COMMENTS, CALLS IRAN CONFLICT ‘WAR WE DON’T NEED

“You would think sympathizing with a terrorist regime would be disqualifying, but apparently, for Democrats, it’s a fast pass to the front of the primary,” Alyssa Brouillet, Mike Rogers’ campaign communications director, told Fox News Digital. “No amount of Abdul’s attempts to distract or deflect will be enough to hide how dangerous he and the Democrat party really are for Michigan.”

El-Sayed also faced some push back online over his answer to a question about his upcoming event with progressive commentator Hasan Piker, who has been accused of making antisemitic remarks and downplaying the October 7 massacre by Hamas.

“To me, it’s about speaking to a broader audience,” El-Sayed explained. “I’m wanting to speak with Hasan’s audience too.”

Fox News Digital reached out to El-Sayed’s campaign for comment. 

The Senate race in battleground Michigan is one of a handful in this year’s midterm elections that will determine if the Republicans hold their 53-47 majority in the chamber. Michigan, where Democratic Sen. Gary Peters is retiring, is one of the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s (NRSC) top targets as they try to not only hold onto their seats, but also possibly expand their majority.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent who later served as chair of the House Intelligence Committee during his tenure in Congress, launched his campaign last April. Rogers is making his second straight run for the Senate, after narrowly losing the 2024 election to now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin in the race to succeed Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who retired. Slotkin, who vastly outspent Rogers, only edged him by roughly 19,000 votes, or a third of a percentage point.

Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary will be held on Aug 4 as El-Sayed squares off against Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens to earn the chance to replace Peters in November.