Secure America Now is a community of over 4 million patriots dedicated to defending American security, values, and freedoms. Through bold advocacy and grassroots action, we hold leaders accountable and fight for a safer, stronger nation.
OUR PRIORITIES
Secure America Now's mission is to bring critical national security threats to the forefront of the American debate.
Defeating Ideological Infiltration of the West
Exposing Foreign Influence in American Institutions
Defending National Sovereignty from Sharia-Based Policy
Whatever your vision for America, we all need security and strength to protect it. That’s what Secure America Now fights for. We partner with patriotic Americans like you to defend our nation, safeguard our freedoms, and hold radical liberal politicians accountable—because a strong America is a safe America.
Go to Action Center
→
→Every piece of merch bought from the official SAN store fuels our critical mission to protect our homeland and preserve common-sense national security. When you wear Secure America Now gear, you aren't just making a statement; you are joining a frontline movement of thousands of Americans demanding we maintain borders, put an end to sanctuary cities, and take a clear, unyielding stance against foreign nuclear threats.
SECURE OUR FUTURE TOGETHER.avif)
.avif)
- Enter Store Here
Add your name to show that Americans stand firmly with Israel and support decisive action against Iran’s threats. We’re working to ensure this message reaches leaders, communities, and decision-makers nationwide. Your support helps expand that impact.
Stay informed on national security with expert analysis and
hard-hitting discussions on the Code Red Podcast.
%201.avif)
On Code Red, Secure America Now’s President, Allen Roth, talks to experts about critical national security threats and their impact on America’s safety.
.avif)
August 20, 2026
Abdul El-Sayed has won Michigan’s Democratic nomination for the United States Senate and will face Republican Mike Rogers in November, according to the Associated Press.
That victory makes El-Sayed’s record more important than ever.
His documented positions include abolishing ICE, reducing police funding, and questioning whether America needs as much police or armed police. He has also campaigned with controversial streamer Hasan Piker, while financial records raise questions about his relationships with CAIR and the family money supporting a pro-El-Sayed super PAC.
These records do not prove criminal wrongdoing. They do create legitimate questions about public safety, national security, financial transparency, and political judgment.
The seven questions involve:
This is not about El-Sayed’s religion or ethnicity. It is about the policies he supports, the alliances he chooses, and the financial relationships surrounding a candidate seeking national power.
El-Sayed is not hiding his position on Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In July 2026, his campaign released an advertisement titled “Abolish ICE.” El-Sayed states:
“I’m Abdul El-Sayed, the only Senate candidate for abolishing ICE, and I approve this message.”
ICE performs immigration-enforcement duties inside the United States. Its responsibilities include arresting certain removable noncitizens, investigating cross-border criminal activity, detaining individuals subject to removal, and executing final removal orders.
El-Sayed argues that immigration enforcement should be rebuilt and that other agencies can secure the border. But abolishing ICE still leaves a fundamental question unanswered:
Which agency would assume ICE’s interior-enforcement responsibilities, and would it have sufficient officers, detention capacity, funding, and legal authority?
Calling for an agency to be abolished is easy. Explaining how federal law will be enforced afterward is the real test.
El-Sayed has attempted to distance himself from the phrase “defund the police,” but his recorded statements from 2020 are clear.
During a Detroit Public Radio interview, El-Sayed said:
“I believe that we do need to defund the police in so far as defunding the police is disinvesting in the means of incarcerating someone or killing them on the streets.”
He also said the policy would mean investing less money in police and more in schools, libraries, mental-health programs, and social services.
The original interview and broader context are available from WDET. A CNN review of El-Sayed’s statements documented his use of the phrase and his support for reducing police spending.
His campaign now says his position has become more nuanced. It says he supports improved recruitment, retention, and retirement funding while opposing militarized policing and supporting behavioral-health intervention.
That updated position should be included in any fair assessment. But it does not erase the need for specific answers.
What police programs would El-Sayed cut? What funding would he preserve? What resources would he provide for violent-crime investigations, emergency response, officer safety, and recruitment?
In a University of Michigan presentation about systemic racism and public spending, El-Sayed asked:
“Do police really need to use guns? Do we need as much of a police force?”
The full video and transcript are published by the University of Michigan.
El-Sayed made the statement while discussing military equipment, police budgets, poverty, public health, and racial disparities. That context belongs in the record.
So does the practical reality that police officers regularly confront armed criminals, active shooters, violent domestic disputes, terrorist threats, and dangerous fugitives.
Police accountability and strong policing are not opposites. America can improve training, transparency, community trust, and disciplined use-of-force standards without leaving officers unable to confront violent threats.
El-Sayed should explain where he now draws that line.
El-Sayed held two Michigan campaign events with political streamer Hasan Piker in April 2026.
The Associated Press reported that criticism centered on several inflammatory Piker statements, including:
Piker told the Associated Press that some remarks were poorly worded. Regarding September 11, he said he did not mean that Americans deserved to die.
El-Sayed said he does not agree with everything Piker has said. He defended the events as an effort to reach Piker’s audience and argued that the Democratic Party should move beyond cancel culture.
Piker has the right to speak. El-Sayed has the right to campaign with him. Americans also have the right to judge that decision.
A senator’s choice of political partners can reveal how that senator evaluates extremism, inflammatory rhetoric, and national-security questions.
El-Sayed campaigns against the influence of outside money in politics. At the same time, a super PAC supporting his candidacy has received major financial support from his family.
El-Sayed’s father-in-law, Jukaku Tayeb, contributed $200,000 to Fighting for Michigan PAC.
PolitiFact verified the contribution and reported that Tayeb was the super PAC’s second-largest donor through the end of March.
The PAC says Tayeb does not control its strategy, operations, or spending. PolitiFact found no evidence establishing that he runs the organization.
That distinction matters. A large donation does not automatically establish control or illegal coordination.
However, when a relative provides a substantial share of the money raised by an outside group supporting a candidate, voters are justified in asking:
Transparency is especially important for a candidate who makes outside political spending a central campaign issue.
The relative involved in the documented CAIR and ISNA relationships is El-Sayed’s father-in-law, Jukaku Tayeb. It is not El-Sayed’s biological father.
Public records show that Tayeb served as president of CAIR-Michigan from 2005 through 2010. CAIR-Michigan’s current leadership page continues to list him as a member of its board of directors.
A Washington Free Beacon investigation based on organizational publications and tax filings also reported that Tayeb has served on the Islamic Society of North America’s founders committee since at least 2007.
CAIR and ISNA were named as unindicted co-conspirators by federal prosecutors during the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case. Prosecutors described the organizations in filings concerning the Muslim Brotherhood’s historical network in the United States.
CAIR and ISNA disputed those descriptions. The reviewed records do not show that El-Sayed or Tayeb was charged with a crime related to the case.
This is that a candidate receiving substantial political support from a relative with this organizational history should answer questions openly and directly.
Does El-Sayed reject political Islamism? What does he believe about the historical court record involving CAIR and ISNA? What influence, if any, does Tayeb have over his agenda?
Americans deserve clear answers.
The CAIR relationship is not limited to El-Sayed’s father-in-law.
El-Sayed’s United States Senate financial disclosure lists CAIR-Oklahoma as the source of a speaking engagement. The organization appears in the section identifying entities that paid more than $5,000 to El-Sayed or for services he provided.
The disclosure can be reviewed here.
A paid speaking engagement does not prove that a speaker agrees with every position taken by the sponsoring organization. It does establish a direct financial and professional relationship that deserves disclosure and explanation.
El-Sayed should answer:
These are specific questions based on a disclosure El-Sayed filed himself.
El-Sayed should provide Michigan voters with five clear commitments:
August 12, 2026
August 10, 2026
.png)
For decades, Americans viewed radical collectivism as an artifact of distant histories or foreign adversaries, something confined to textbook chapters on the Cold War or warnings about state-run collapse in Caracas and Moscow. Yet today, under the sanitized banner of "democratic socialism," the foundational mechanics of state control are quietly establishing a foothold in American municipal and state governance.
The recent electoral momentum of figures like New York’s Zohran Mamdani and Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed is frequently packaged by sympathetic media as a compassionate response to affordability crises. We are told that municipal grocery stores, mandated price caps, state-managed housing, and radical reductions in defense spending are simply common-sense social safety nets. But behind the polished campaign rhetoric lies a familiar blueprint, one that has destabilized economies and stripped away individual liberties wherever it has been tried.
When the rhetoric strips away its moderate marketing, the underlying ideology becomes unmistakable. Speaking candidly about long-term strategy, Mamdani previously acknowledged that while immediate electoral platforms must focus on incremental popular wins, the true ultimate objective remains "seizing the means of production." In a separate inaugural address, he explicitly called to "replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."
This is not a modern innovation; it is classical Marxist doctrine re-skinned for contemporary voters.
To understand where these policies lead, one need only look across the ocean. When state leaders in Venezuela sought to counter inflation and supply chain bottlenecks, they created Abasto Bicentenario, a network of government-run grocery stores designed to replace private market distribution. The result was not cheaper food, but artificial shortages, massive corruption, black markets, and a populace dependent on state loyalty for basic sustenance. Similarly, the rent freezes and housing takeovers being championed in major U.S. cities closely mirror the centralized state housing cooperatives of Eastern Bloc nations in the 1970s: policies that starved housing markets of capital, halted development, and left infrastructure to rot.
Furthermore, these domestic economic experiments carry dire national security implications. Economic freedom is the bedrock of national resilience. A nation burdened by debt-fueled state expansions, disincentivized private enterprise, and anti-market regulation becomes fundamentally fragile. When political figures pair domestic collectivism with calls to dismantle international defense alliances, condition foreign military aid, and scale down American strategic deterrence, they create dangerous power vacuums globally. Hostile state actors in Beijing, Tehran, and Moscow do not distinguish between domestic economic overreach and foreign policy weakness; they recognize both as signals of decline.
The threat to American security today is not solely external; it is incremental. Collectivism rarely arrives all at once with a grand declaration. It sneaks into city councils, state legislatures, and ballot initiatives disguised as relief.
America’s strength has always rested on free-market innovation, constitutional property rights, and individual liberty. Protecting national security requires defending those core principles at home just as vigorously as we defend our interests abroad. If we ignore the warnings of history and allow the mechanics of state control to become normalized in our local governments, we will wake up to find the very freedoms that made this nation secure have been surrendered from within.
.avif)
.avif)
.avif)
