Collinson argues religious attacks challenge constitutional principles
Stephen CollinsonCNN Politics senior reporter
Collinson argues that attacks on El-Sayed's faith go beyond ordinary campaign scrutiny and conflict with constitutional principles against religious tests. He distinguishes questions about policy from excluding a candidate because he is Muslim. This is his analysis, not a court ruling.
“goes beyond a campaign scare. It challenges constitutional principles”
Analysis
Where this statement fits
Trump calls Abdul El-Sayed "Mohammed" and a jihadist; El-Sayed says Trump knows his name is Abdul
President Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed as Mohammed, starting with a Truth Social post late on October 7, 2026, that said "Mohammed goes back to the days of the Jihad" and called him a terrorist sympathizer. At an October 16 rally in Dalton, Georgia, Trump said he had taken heat for the name, that as president he can call El-Sayed whatever he wants, and that El-Sayed's middle name is Mohammad. He also called El-Sayed a jihadist. El-Sayed says Trump knows his name is Abdul and is using his name and faith to distract voters.
Source and context
Analysis
About this source
Collinson criticizes religious exclusion and attributes constitutional analysis to himself and a legal scholar.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
His October 30 analysis considers comments by Trump, Rogers and Bernie Moreno.
After the quotation
He discusses the Constitution's religious-test prohibition and quotes Brown University professor Corey Brettschneider on the constitutional implications.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Collinson expressly criticizes the religious exclusion implied by the attacks.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseGraham condemns religious loyalty tests aimed at El-Sayed
“Every moment that El-Sayed is forced to defend his religion is a distraction”Read statement
Cole rejects the alleged Brotherhood affiliation
“made up out of whole cloth.”Read statement
Khalil rejects the jihadist label
“There is absolutely no credible reason to apply the term to El-Sayed”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Collinson argues religious attacks challenge constitutional principles
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7381-collinson-argues-that-attacks-on-el-sayed-s
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Collinson argues religious attacks challenge constitutional principles". First published: 2026-10-30. Last updated: 2026-10-30. https://disputeindex.com/events/7381-collinson-argues-that-attacks-on-el-sayed-s