As voters pick the Senate candidates who will face off in the midterm elections in November, with control of the chamber at stake, nominees from both parties have begun sharpening attacks on their opponents.
In three of the most competitive and crucial states — Michigan, Maine and Ohio — Republicans have accused their opponents of justifying terrorism and supporting benefits for unauthorized immigrants. Democrats, for their part, have sought to capitalize on the unpopularity of President Trump’s cuts to health care programs.
Here is a look at some of the claims.
What Was Said
“I spent years hunting terrorists and bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Never in a million years did I think that I would be running against someone who believes America deserved 9/11.”
— Former Representative Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate candidate in Michigan, in a statement on Wednesday
False. Mr. Rogers issued the incendiary statement about his opponent, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the morning after Dr. El-Sayed won the Democratic primary. The New York Times was unable to find an example of Dr. El-Sayed stating that he “believes America deserved” the Sept. 11 attacks, and the Rogers campaign did not respond to questions about whether one existed.
In the statement, Mr. Rogers also echoed a number of other attacks by Republicans that trafficked in anti-Muslim sentiment, calling Dr. El-Sayed, who would be the first Muslim elected to the Senate, “a RADICAL ISLAMIST” who would “unleash terror.”
There is no evidence that Dr. El-Sayed has said that “America deserved 9/11.” On the contrary, the Democratic nominee wrote in his 2020 book that the “attack devastated me,” and called it “craven.”
Mr. Rogers might have been referring to comments made and retracted by Hasan Piker, a left-wing political commentator who supports Dr. El-Sayed’s candidacy.
Mr. Piker was reacting in 2019 to a podcast interview featuring Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas. While discussing what motivated the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Crenshaw expressed skepticism of the view that U.S. actions in the Middle East had been to blame, and argued instead that fundamentalist ideology had played a larger role.
Mr. Piker, appearing on Twitch, a livestreaming platform, objected vehemently and said, “This is so insane. America deserved 9/11, dude.”
Those comments immediately incited controversy and led to a one-week suspension on Twitch.
Asked that month if he meant what he had said, Mr. Piker responded, “No, obviously not,” and added that he had been expressing frustration with Mr. Crenshaw’s comments. Mr. Piker argued that his comments had been taken out of context, and that he had been voicing a not-so-uncommon view that foreign policy decisions had destabilized the Middle East, and had a “direct consequence” in leading to Sept. 11.
“I know that I was inappropriate,” he said of his remarks.
In an April interview on Fox News, Dr. El-Sayed addressed Mr. Piker’s remarks, saying, “Of course, I don’t think 9/11 was justified. Because you appear with somebody doesn’t mean you agree with them on everything.”
What Was Said
“Susan Collins helped Trump slash Medicaid to the tune of $990 billion.”
— Troy Jackson, the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, in a social media post on July 30
This is misleading. Mr. Jackson was referring to the domestic policy package signed into law by Mr. Trump last summer that included nearly a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid. But Ms. Collins, the incumbent Republican senator from Maine and Mr. Jackson’s opponent, was one of three G.O.P. senators to vote against that bill. She did cast an earlier vote to advance debate over the legislation.
As Republicans considered and repeatedly revised the bill between June and early July last year, Ms. Collins said that she supported “reasonable” work requirements to Medicaid. But she expressed concern over the effect of the proposed changes to the program on children, low-income families, seniors and people with disabilities.
In late June 2025, Ms. Collins voted for a procedural step to bring the legislation to the Senate floor, something that had to take place before senators voted on the passage of the bill. The motion passed 51 to 49. Had Ms. Collins voted against taking the procedural step, Vice President JD Vance could have still cast the tiebreaking vote to advance debate. (Later that summer, he broke a tie on a motion to proceed — Ms. Collins had voted against doing so — on a bill to rescind $9 billion in congressionally approved funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting.)
Ms. Collins said at the time that she would offer a number of amendments to alter the bill, and that absent changes, she “would be leaning against the bill.”
Gregory J. Wawro, a political science professor at Columbia University and an expert on congressional procedure, said that “it is not that unusual to vote with the party on a procedural vote but then vote against final passage.”
“Voting against the motion to proceed likely would not have killed H.R. 1, but it certainly would have sent a strong signal of opposition,” he added, referring to Mr. Trump’s signature domestic policy bill.
The Senate then began negotiating and rewriting the bill. Ms. Collins offered an amendment to increase the size of a fund created by the bill to support rural health care providers, but that amendment failed. She ultimately voted against the legislation, citing the Medicaid cuts as the reason for her opposition.
“My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes,” she said in a statement afterward.
The legislation still passed, with Mr. Vance casting the tiebreaking vote.
Mr. Jackson has at times been more precise and accurate in distinguishing the two votes. In early July, for example, he characterized her vote as “helping advance” the legislation.
Mr. Jackson’s campaign cited praise from a Republican colleague of Ms. Collins’s who called her a “team player” and said that her procedural vote “helped us get on the bill at a time when we needed that help.”
What Was Said
“He supported Social Security payments for illegals, health care for illegals, Covid checks for illegals.”
— Senator Jon Husted, Republican of Ohio, in a Fox News interview, referring to his opponent, Sherrod Brown
This is misleading. A spokeswoman for Mr. Husted’s campaign cited three votes cast by Mr. Brown, a former senator and current Democratic nominee, against amendments offered by Republican lawmakers through the years. But Mr. Husted’s claim distorted what those votes would have done.
Social Security
Mr. Husted was referring to Mr. Brown’s vote against a 2007 amendment, sponsored by Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, to an education bill that sought to bar previously unauthorized immigrants who later gained legal status from receiving credit for taxes paid to Social Security using falsified numbers. But under the current law and the law at the time, unauthorized immigrants could not receive Social Security benefits, and Mr. Brown’s vote did not seek to change that.
It is also worth noting that Mr. Brown voted for a similar amendment from Mr. Ensign later that year.
Health Care
Mr. Brown also voted against a 2013 amendment to a budget bill that prohibited unauthorized immigrants and previously unauthorized immigrants from receiving federally subsidized health care. Its sponsor, Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said at the time that the amendment aimed to pre-empt the effect of immigration reform by barring immigrants who gained legal status from receiving subsidized health care.
But unauthorized immigrants were already largely barred from federally funded health care programs. A counterproposal offered the same day by a Democratic senator, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, reaffirmed existing law and passed by voice vote. The budget bill ultimately passed on a party-line vote.
Covid checks
Mr. Brown voted to pass a pandemic stimulus package in early 2021 that included $1,400 checks for people, but voted against an amendment to bar any “alien who is not lawfully present” from receiving the checks.
That did not mean, though, that Mr. Brown voted to give unauthorized immigrants checks. That is because the legislation barred “any nonresident alien individual” — people who were not U.S. citizens or green card holders — from receiving a payment, and generally required recipients to have a Social Security number. An exception was made for spouses of military members.
Unauthorized immigrants who file taxes instead use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. But Republicans argued that the legislation had a loophole for some unauthorized immigrants, like recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, who had Social Security numbers. Regardless, the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants did not have a Social Security number, and the language around eligibility was virtually identical in the previous two rounds of stimulus checks, which both passed in 2020 with considerably more Republican support.
