AP Exclusive: Sen. Van Hollen backs El-Sayed for Michigan Senate in break from Democratic leadership

WASHINGTON (AP) — Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen is backing progressive Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, breaking with party leadership and intensifying a battle over the party’s direction in one of the most important Senate races of 2026.

Van Hollen’s endorsement, shared first with The Associated Press on the day early voting begins in Michigan, makes him the first senator to back El-Sayed since Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed him shortly after he launched his campaign last year. It also comes on the heels of big wins for progressive challengers in New York U.S. House races on Tuesday.

The Aug. 4 race in Michigan has increasingly split Democrats along ideological lines, with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer backing U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow drawing support from other prominent senators.

Democrats will need to hold the Michigan seat if they want a shot at winning the majority this year. It opened by Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’ retirement and former Rep. Mike Rogers has an uncontested path to the Republican nomination.

In an interview with the AP, Van Hollen said he believed El-Sayed was the “strongest” candidate who can win in November, and “the candidate who’s willing to take on the status quo.”

“When I say the status quo, I mean not just the lawless Trump administration, but take on the Democratic establishment that has not fought hard enough for working people," said Van Hollen.

Schumer last week publicly backed Stevens, a fourth-term congresswoman from suburban Detroit who is seen as the more moderate candidate in the race. She has also been endorsed by other senators from battleground states, including Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego and Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, and former Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Stevens has also benefited from heavy outside spending, including nearly $8 million this month from United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

McMorrow, a state senator, has tried to carve out her own lane between Stevens and El-Sayed as an anti-establishment candidate with a reform-focused agenda. She has won endorsements from other senators, including Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, while also drawing millions in outside support.

El-Sayed, the former Wayne County health director, has run furthest to the left on issues including Medicare for All and halting all U.S. weapons transfers to Israel, making him a favorite of the party’s progressive wing. He has campaigned with popular-yet-controversial streamer Hasan Piker, who has millions of followers online but has said things such as that “America deserved 9/11.”

Earlier this month, the United Auto Workers endorsed him, saying its members “want a fighter in Washington, D.C. who isn’t afraid to push forward a strong working-class agenda with moral clarity.”

Van Hollen said he believes El-Sayed is best positioned to compete in a battleground state because he is running on affordability and against what he described as a political system too influenced by wealthy donors and special interests.

“This is not about left versus right. This is about very concentrated economic and political power at the top, and everybody else,” Van Hollen said. “And he’s fighting for everybody else.”

El-Sayed praised Van Hollen after receiving the endorsement, calling it the “culmination of an ongoing conversation” and describing the senator as a “mentor.”

With progressives coming off a string of wins in New York, El-Sayed said the results reflected the same frustrations he has heard from voters across Michigan.

“It’s not surprising to me that candidates who buck that system win,” El-Sayed said. “I really hope that folks in D.C., like Chuck Schumer, decide to pay attention, finally.”

Asked whether backing El-Sayed amounted to a broader rebuke of Democratic leadership, Van Hollen said the endorsement was “not about personalities” but about backing a candidate who would take on both President Donald Trump and “the establishment Democratic Party” that he said is “too cozy with big money special interests.”

Van Hollen has not called on Schumer to step aside. Asked if he would be interested in leading Democrats in the Senate, Van Hollen told the AP that he has “not thought about doing that.”

But his endorsement lands at a moment of growing friction between Democratic leadership and the party’s left flank over how aggressively to confront Trump and what kind of candidates can win in battleground states.

Those tensions were exacerbated earlier this month in Maine, where Schumer had backed Gov. Janet Mills in the Democratic Senate primary before she suspended her campaign and progressive Graham Platner won the nomination.

Van Hollen has also been among the Senate Democrats urging the party to rethink its approach after the 2024 election. He framed his endorsement of El-Sayed at odds with leadership as a “difference of opinion with respect to which candidates will best connect with voters.”

“I think it's pretty clear that Abdul is the candidate who can build a grassroots movement and others are not," said Van Hollen.

FILE - Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., speaks during the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies hearing on Capitol Hill, May 12, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Advocates said the tactic created a humanitarian crisis as thousands of people settled in unsafe makeshift shelters to await their turn. The Trump administration said it was necessary to deal with an increase of asylum seekers at the border.

The policy isn't in place now, though authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers.

The administration argued that metering is a critical tool that’s been used by presidents of both parties and should stay available. Federal attorneys say people turned away at the border could come back later, though lines were thousands of people long when the policy was in place before.

The case is one of several immigration suits is considering this term, including Trump’s push to end restrict birthright citizenship and his administration’s effort to strip legal temporary protections for migrants fleeing instability and armed conflict.

Under federal law, migrants who arrive in the U.S. must be able to apply for asylum and be screened for fear of persecution in their home countries.

The Justice Department argued that people stopped by authorities haven’t arrived in the country, so immigration agents don’t have to let them apply.

The court's conservative majority agreed. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

But attorneys for people seeking asylum say the law has long meant anyone arriving at a port of entry should be screened, and blocking arrivals disregards the nation’s ideals.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, saying that the majority’s opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”

In an unusual exchange, Alito voiced a response after she finished speaking. He expressed surprised that she'd read her dissent out loud and defended his opinion by pointing out that the policy had been used during two presidential administrations. “I won’t add anything more to that,” Alito said.

Metering was first used under President Barack Obama when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main crossing to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico. It was expanded to all border crossings from Mexico during Trump’s first term in the White House.

It ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.

The same year, a California-based federal judge found that metering violated the asylum seekers rights and the law requiring screening. A divided appeals court panel affirmed the ruling but nearly half of judges on the full San Francisco-based court voted to rehear it, a strong signal that might have caught the attention of the Supreme Court.

U.S. law allows people seeking refuge to apply for asylum once they are on American soil, regardless of whether they came legally. To qualify for asylum, they must show a fear of persecution in their homeland for specific reasons, like race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

People who are eventually granted asylum can’t be deported. They can legally work, bring in immediate family, apply for legal residency and seek citizenship.

Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.

FILE - The U.S. Supreme Court is photographed, June 8, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)