‘Absolutely Nowhere’: Hassan Nehme Unloads on Michigan GOP Over Leadership, Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

 

Republican state House candidate Hassan Nehme delivered a blistering rebuke of the Michigan Republican Party, accusing its leadership of abandoning his campaign while prioritizing internal power struggles over winning elections.

In a Facebook post, Nehme called the party “an absolute embarrassment” and argued that anti-Muslim rhetoric, ineffective leadership and an obsession with titles have undermined Republican efforts to reach voters.

Nehme, the Republican candidate for Michigan’s 15th House District, faced Democrat Jalal Hussein Abdallah in a district covering west Dearborn and Dearborn Heights. His criticism centered on what he described as a disconnect between the work expected of candidates and the support provided by Republican organizations.

He said he fought for votes in communities the party had alienated, only to find that the organizations he belonged to were unwilling to help.

“And where was the MIGOP? Absolutely fucking nowhere,” Nehme wrote.

A Rebuke From Inside the Party

Nehme’s criticism carried a personal dimension: He identified himself as a member of Republican executive committees and accused those organizations of finding money for candidates outside their districts while failing to support his campaign.

The post did not name the committees, identify specific contributions or provide financial records. His allegations nevertheless framed the dispute as an accountability problem within the party’s own structure.

Nehme described committees consumed by competition for chairmanships and influence, arguing that those ambitions had displaced basic campaign responsibilities: recruiting volunteers, knocking on doors, raising money and organizing voters.

“You can’t win elections sitting around congratulating yourselves for being Republicans,” he wrote.

Anti-Muslim Rhetoric and Missed Opportunities

Nehme placed anti-Muslim rhetoric at the center of his criticism, arguing that the party was damaging its prospects by alienating entire communities.

His accusation went beyond campaign funding. He portrayed the party’s outreach problems and organizational failures as interconnected: Candidates were being asked to earn trust in communities where the Republican brand had already created obstacles, without receiving the resources needed to overcome them.

The post did not identify particular statements or officials responsible for the rhetoric he condemned. Instead, it challenged the party’s broader direction and its willingness to compete for voters it has struggled to reach.

Opponent’s Disciplinary Case Added to His Frustration

Nehme also questioned why Republicans had failed to support him while his Democratic opponent faced disciplinary proceedings involving approximately $800,000 in client settlement funds.

The Detroit Free Press reported that the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission filed a complaint alleging that Abdallah failed to distribute money owed to clients. His attorney, Philip Thomas, told the newspaper that all money owed to the clients had been repaid. The proceedings concerned professional misconduct allegations; the reporting cited here did not establish a final disciplinary ruling.

For Nehme, the proceedings represented another reason Republican organizations should have taken his campaign seriously. His assertion that he outperformed other Republicans in his area remains his assessment in the post; establishing that independently would require a comparison of completed election returns.

Hassan Nehme’s Full Facebook Post

The Michigan Republican Party is an absolute embarrassment.

The anti-Muslim rhetoric, pathetic leadership, and nonstop internal power struggles are destroying this party. We alienate entire communities, throw away opportunities to win statewide elections, and then act surprised when Democrats wipe the floor with us.

I ran for an OPEN seat in two overwhelmingly Democratic cities, outperformed Republicans in my area, and challenged an opponent facing disciplinary proceedings over approximately $800,000 in client settlement funds.

And where was the MIGOP? Absolutely fucking nowhere.

I’m on the executive committees of Republican organizations that had money to donate to candidates outside their districts but couldn’t lift a finger to support one of their own.

These committees are glorified social clubs filled with people obsessed with titles, influence, and controlling a party that keeps losing.

Everybody wants to be chairman. Everybody wants a seat at the table. But when it’s time to knock doors, organize volunteers, raise money, or actually fight for a seat, they vanish.

You can’t win elections sitting around congratulating yourselves for being Republicans.

I fought to earn votes in communities this party has spent years alienating, while the very people who should have been helping were too busy fighting each other over meaningless positions.

We don’t have a functioning political machine. We have a collection of egos pretending to be one.

The Democrats didn’t have to destroy the Michigan Republican Party. Its own leadership is doing a damn good job of that.

Nehme’s post leaves Republican leaders with a pointed challenge: explain how the Michigan Republican Party supports candidates doing difficult electoral work, and whether their priorities extend beyond controlling the party itself.

And Hassan we agree with you 100%

Mai Xiong Faces Questions Over Her Home, a Fraud-Related Judgment and Her Calls for Accountability

Materials circulated by Michigan Republican Party Grassroots Vice Chairman Long bring renewed attention to a reported $2.4 million civil judgment involving Xiong’s property. The lawmaker has condemned his alleged racist attacks, while questions about the financial case remain unresolved.

State Rep. Mai Xiong is calling for accountability over campaign activity involving Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers. At the same time, materials attributed to Michigan Republican Party Grassroots Vice Chairman Chris Long have renewed attention to a financial controversy involving her Warren home.

The documents and news reports describe a civil judgment connected to efforts to recover money from an investment fraud scheme operated by Xiong’s sister, Kay Yang. Federal regulators secured substantial judgments against Yang, while separate Wisconsin litigation reportedly included Xiong and her property.

Xiong has denied receiving money or property from her sister or the other defendants. That denial is an essential part of the story. So is the reported judgment, along with the question of what happened after Xiong said she intended to challenge it.

Her October 22, 2026, statement forcefully condemned Long’s alleged attacks on her ethnicity, loyalty and family. But it did not explain how her home was financed or provide an update on the Wisconsin case. Those financial questions deserve answers supported by records, just as her accusations against Long deserve examination in their full context.

According to an August 5, 2024, report by The Detroit News, Xiong purchased her Warren home for $310,000 in May 2021. The newspaper reported that the purchase occurred approximately one month after investors filed a Wisconsin lawsuit against Yang seeking to recover money lost through her financial dealings.

A subsequent lawsuit identified Xiong’s home among eight properties allegedly purchased with money connected to Yang’s operation. The plaintiffs accused Yang of transferring funds to relatives and associates to prevent creditors from collecting what they were owed.

The newspaper reported that a Wisconsin judge entered a roughly $2.4 million default judgment against 13 defendants, including Xiong, in September 2022 and imposed liens on the identified properties.

That placed Xiong’s connection to the case beyond a general question about her sister’s conduct. According to the reporting, she was a named defendant, and her property was included in the recovery effort.

Xiong denied receiving money or property from the defendants and said she was working to vacate the judgment as it applied to her and her home. However, the newspaper’s review raised questions about the steps she had taken.

Court records showed that Xiong acknowledged service of the lawsuit on August 31, 2022. As of the newspaper’s August 2024 report, it found no filings in which she disputed the allegations or sought to vacate the judgment.

That gap between her stated intentions and the filings described by the newspaper warrants a clear explanation. A default judgment does not establish that every allegation was tested at a contested trial, but saying a judgment will be challenged does not establish that it has been overturned.

The material reviewed does not confirm whether the judgment or lien has since been modified, satisfied or vacated. Its present status therefore remains an important unanswered question.

The federal record concerning Yang is more extensive. In May 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced default judgments against Yang and Xapphire LLC following an investment operation that targeted members of the Hmong-American community.

According to the SEC’s account of the court’s findings, Yang offered investments through businesses she owned and promised annual returns of 20% to 50%. She presented her foreign exchange trading as consistently successful, even though substantial losses occurred and less than half of investors’ contributions went into that trading.

Approximately $4.06 million was misappropriated for personal and family spending, including casinos, travel, homes and vehicles, as well as payments to investors in an earlier venture. The court ordered approximately $4.06 million in disgorgement, an equal civil penalty and prejudgment interest.

Yang was also barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Her husband, Chao Yang, faced a separate repayment order as a relief defendant.

A separate Commodity Futures Trading Commission proceeding produced another substantial judgment in June 2023. Yang and her companies were ordered to pay approximately $13.69 million in restitution and $10.39 million in civil penalties.

The CFTC reported that the court found the operation collected at least $15.7 million from approximately 67 individuals or entities, most of them members of Wisconsin’s Hmong community. At least $4.8 million was misappropriated, including nearly $1.4 million spent at casinos and on luxury hotels and cars.

These were civil enforcement judgments involving overlapping conduct and different remedies. The awards cannot simply be added together and presented as a single amount stolen. They also cannot be described as federal awards owed personally by Mai Xiong.

Further examination of Yang’s record uncovered a later criminal conviction involving property filings. A February 13, 2026, federal court order recounts that a Wisconsin jury found her guilty on four counts of criminal slander of title on April 17, 2025. She was sentenced that June.

February 2026 reporting by Tom Daykin described a three-year prison sentence arising from false filings, including a purported $4 million lien against Yang’s former home.

Yang challenged the conviction. Her February 2026 federal habeas proceeding was dismissed without prejudice because she had not exhausted available state remedies. That dismissal concerned the procedure for pursuing relief; it did not decide the merits of her challenge.

The conviction adds a significant development to Yang’s legal history. It remains a conviction of Yang, however, and supplies no basis for portraying Xiong as criminally convicted or as a knowing participant in her sister’s investment scheme.

The materials also describe Yang’s connection to a separate financial controversy involving Hmong College Prep Academy in Minnesota.

An October 2021 federal court order documents how the school’s founder and superintendent, Christiana Hang, approached her friend Yang about potential investors or donors. Yang then contacted a Woodstock Capital principal. The court’s background account accepted the school’s allegations for purposes of deciding the motions before it.

According to the supplied reporting, Hang ultimately transferred $5 million in school funds to Woodstock, with approximately $700,000 remaining eighteen months later. The school alleged that its money had been stolen or badly managed, while Woodstock attributed the losses to investment timing during the coronavirus pandemic.

The reporting described the investment as violating state restrictions on school investments. It also said Hang and her husband, school chief operating officer Pao Yang, subsequently resigned with combined separation payments of $350,000.

At the time of that coverage, no criminal or civil enforcement charges had been filed in the school matter. That qualification must remain attached to its original reporting period.

Nothing reviewed places Mai Xiong in the school’s investment decision or establishes that she received school funds. The episode provides background about Kay Yang’s financial associations, but it does not independently establish wrongdoing by Xiong.

Meanwhile, investors continued pursuing assets associated with Yang. Daykin’s February 2026 reporting described Long and Miana Lee obtaining a Milwaukee office building through a court-ordered transfer and later pursuing plans to convert it into an events venue.

The building had been used by Enduring Love International Center, a church where Yang was a member. Its transfer illustrates the practical challenge facing investors: obtaining a judgment and recovering money are separate battles. The CFTC itself warned that repayment orders cannot guarantee recovery when defendants lack sufficient assets.

Against that financial backdrop, Xiong’s October 22 statement addressed the increasingly personal political confrontation with Long.

She said the dispute followed her request for an investigation and oversight hearing into potentially unlawful campaign activity. According to her account, Long called her a “Chinese Communist Party Asset” and referred to her deceased parents, sister and entire family as “scumbags.”

The complete original exchange was not supplied, so the wording and context of those remarks remain attributed to Xiong.

In her response, she described herself as a Hmong American born in a refugee camp in Thailand and a Warren resident of 23 years. She said her father fought alongside American soldiers in Laos during the Vietnam War and argued that her family’s history should not be weaponized against her.

“Asian Americans should not be asked to repeatedly prove our loyalty to a country we call home,” she wrote.

Xiong called on the Michigan Republican Party to condemn Long’s actions and rejected attacks based on race or immigrant background. The materials reviewed provide no evidence that she is an asset of the Chinese Communist Party. Scrutiny of her property and finances must rest on financial and legal records.

Her statement also defended the campaign oversight request that she said preceded the confrontation. Reporting corroborates that Kristi Rogers, Mike Rogers’ wife, distributed $10 gas cards at a Detroit Freedom Fuel station on October 14 while promoting her husband’s proposal to suspend the state gas tax.

Xiong questioned whether the activity violated election law and called for an oversight hearing. The material reviewed contains no official finding establishing that a violation occurred.

“Despite these attacks, I will not be intimidated or silenced for questions I raised about the Rogers’ campaign,” she wrote.

Her demand for oversight establishes a reasonable principle: financial activity involving political figures deserves examination when legitimate questions arise. That principle applies equally to the reported judgment involving her property.

A complete public accounting would include the records explaining her home’s financing, her response to the Wisconsin lawsuit and any subsequent order modifying or vacating the judgment. Long should likewise provide the complete exchange underlying Xiong’s accusations and clearly distinguish established findings from his own claims.

The available record supports serious scrutiny of Xiong’s property and her handling of the litigation. It does not establish that she operated her sister’s scheme or knowingly participated in fraud.

Xiong’s denial and the reported judgment remain in tension. Resolving that tension requires the current court record and a documented explanation of the transaction. For an elected official who is publicly demanding accountability from others, providing that explanation is a fair expectation.

John James Once Called Trump “Not Fit to Lead.” Now He Wants Voters to Forget

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate John James has spent much of his political career presenting himself as a loyal ally of President Donald Trump. Today, James praises Trump as a transformational leader, highlights Trump’s endorsement of his campaign and tells Republican voters that the two men have stood together through “thick and thin.”

But James’ political record includes a sharply different assessment of Trump — one that raises questions about conviction, consistency and political expediency. Is John James j7dt an opportunist?

In December 2022, John James publicly declared that Donald Trump could not be trusted and was “not fit to lead.”

“A man who would suspend the Constitution can’t be trusted,” James said. “Anyone who will put their egos over people is not fit to lead.”

Those were not the words of a Democrat, a liberal commentator or a member of the anti-Trump resistance. They came from a Republican who had already received Trump’s endorsement in two Michigan Senate campaigns and who was preparing to take office in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Yet within months, James abandoned that position and endorsed the same man he had described as untrustworthy and unfit for leadership.

What Prompted James’ Condemnation?

The controversy began on December 3, 2022, when Trump posted a statement on Truth Social responding to claims that social-media companies and Democratic political figures had worked to suppress reporting about Hunter Biden before the 2020 presidential election.

Trump asked whether the 2020 election results should be thrown out or whether a new election should be held. He then wrote that alleged election fraud permitted the “termination” of constitutional rules, regulations and articles.

The statement immediately generated criticism because the Constitution does not contain a mechanism allowing a defeated presidential candidate to suspend it or discard election results based on allegations posted on social media.

Trump’s remarks came only weeks after he had formally announced another campaign for president. As a result, Republicans were confronted with a direct question: Could they support a candidate who appeared willing to set aside constitutional safeguards to return himself to power?

John James initially answered that question forcefully.

On December 6, James said that a person willing to suspend the Constitution “can’t be trusted” and was “not fit to lead.”

It was one of the strongest condemnations James had ever issued against Trump.

James Did Not Merely Disagree on Policy

James’ language is important.

He did not simply say Trump had chosen the wrong words. He did not characterize the statement as an unfortunate distraction. He did not say that Trump needed to clarify his position.

James questioned Trump’s trustworthiness and fitness for leadership.

For a politician who frequently emphasizes his military service and oath to the Constitution, the statement appeared to establish a clear red line. James seemed to be saying that constitutional government must take priority over loyalty to any political leader.

But that red line did not last.

Seven Months Later, James Endorsed Trump

In July 2023, James endorsed Trump’s campaign to return to the White House.

The endorsement came approximately seven months after James had said Trump could not be trusted and was not fit to lead. James did not identify any major apology, constitutional clarification or change in behavior that had caused him to reverse his judgment.

Instead, he joined Michigan’s other Republican members of Congress in supporting Trump.

The reversal attracted national attention because James had moved from declaring Trump unfit for leadership to actively helping him regain the presidency.

James’ decision demonstrated that his December 2022 denunciation was not the beginning of an organized effort to oppose Trump. He did not launch a constitutional accountability campaign. He did not endorse one of Trump’s Republican primary opponents. He did not make Trump’s constitutional statement a central issue in Congress.

He simply moved on.

Did James “Pursue” His Opposition to Trump?

There is little evidence that James pursued the matter beyond issuing the original statement.

He did not introduce a congressional resolution censuring Trump over the remarks. He did not lead a Republican coalition arguing that Trump should be disqualified from the party’s nomination. He did not continue publicly describing Trump as untrustworthy or unfit.

Instead, James reversed course and endorsed him.

That distinction matters. Political candidates occasionally disagree with members of their own party. But James’ original criticism concerned the Constitution itself and a candidate’s basic fitness to hold power.

If James sincerely believed Trump was unfit to lead in December 2022, voters are entitled to ask what changed by July 2023.

Did James conclude that Trump had withdrawn or corrected the position? Did James decide the constitutional issue was no longer important? Or did Trump’s continued dominance of the Republican Party make opposition politically inconvenient?

James has never provided a detailed public explanation that fully reconciles those two positions.

A Longer History of Shifting Language

The 2022 reversal was not the first time James had attempted to balance criticism of Trump with political loyalty to him.

During his 2018 Senate campaign, James declared that he would support Trump “2,000%.” Trump endorsed James in the Republican primary and later campaigned for him.

During the 2020 election, however, leaked audio revealed James discussing areas in which he disagreed with Trump. James cited issues including proposed Great Lakes funding cuts, Trump’s vulgar description of certain countries and Trump’s criticism of deceased political figures.

James also explained why he did not criticize Trump more aggressively in public. He argued that remaining publicly quiet could give him access and influence inside the administration.

“Donald Trump doesn’t need less Black folks around him, he needs more,” James said during the private discussion.

That explanation suggested James was willing to mute public disagreements as a political strategy. His approach was not necessarily unconditional approval of Trump, but a calculation that access and influence were more valuable than public confrontation.

The December 2022 statement temporarily broke that pattern. James’ words were direct, public and personal: Trump could not be trusted and was not fit to lead.

The break proved temporary.

James Rebrands Himself as Trump’s Partner

When James announced his campaign for Michigan governor in April 2025, he portrayed his relationship with Trump very differently.

“President Trump and I have been in each other’s corner through thick and thin for eight years — no reason that will end now,” James said in his gubernatorial announcement.

That claim omitted the fact that James had once publicly declared Trump unfit for leadership.

The phrase “through thick and thin” suggests uninterrupted loyalty. The historical record shows something more complicated: strong support, private criticism, public condemnation and then renewed loyalty.

In June 2026, Trump endorsed James for governor. James responded by calling Trump “the greatest President of my lifetime” and thanking him for his “complete and total endorsement.”

The Trump endorsement became a major boost for James in the Republican primary and helped consolidate establishment support around his campaign. (AP News)

The Constitutional Question Never Went Away

James’ reversal is especially significant because the dispute was not primarily about taxes, spending, foreign policy or personality. It involved the constitutional transfer of presidential power.

James is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an individual president or political party.

That background gave his December 2022 statement additional weight. James appeared to be applying the principles associated with that oath when he said a man willing to suspend the Constitution could not be trusted.

The unanswered question is why the constitutional principle that made Trump unfit in December 2022 was apparently no longer disqualifying seven months later.

Trump’s dominance of the Republican electorate offers an obvious political explanation. Opposing Trump carried the risk of alienating the voters James would need for future campaigns, particularly a statewide Republican primary.

By endorsing Trump in 2023 and closely aligning himself with Trump afterward, James restored his standing with the party’s MAGA base and positioned himself for Trump’s eventual endorsement in the 2026 governor’s race.

That may have been politically effective. It does not resolve the contradiction.

James’ Record Gives His Opponents an Opening

James’ Republican opponents can use the episode to question whether his current loyalty to Trump is genuine or convenient.

A rival can argue that James condemned Trump when he believed the party might be moving in another direction, then returned to Trump once it became clear that Trump remained the Republican Party’s dominant figure.

Democrats can make a different argument. They can say James recognized the danger of Trump’s constitutional rhetoric, accurately described it, and then abandoned his own judgment to protect his political future.

Both attacks lead to the same underlying question: What does John James truly believe?

If Trump was not fit to lead in December 2022, why did James help him return to power?

If Trump was fit to lead by July 2023, why did James use such sweeping and definitive language only months earlier?

A Question of Judgment, Not Just Loyalty

The controversy is not simply about whether James is sufficiently loyal to Trump. It is also about James’ judgment.

One possibility is that James was correct in December 2022 and later sacrificed principle for political survival.

Another is that James issued an exaggerated condemnation in the heat of the moment and later reconsidered.

A third possibility is that both statements were shaped primarily by the political needs of the moment.

None of those explanations is particularly flattering.

Michigan voters may ultimately care more about the economy, roads, schools, taxes and public safety than a statement made several years earlier. But gubernatorial candidates also ask voters to trust their character and consistency.

James’ own words created a standard against which he can be measured.

“A man who would suspend the Constitution can’t be trusted,” James said.

Today, John James is asking Michigan Republicans to trust both Donald Trump and himself — while offering little explanation for why the man he once called untrustworthy and unfit to lead is now, in James’ words, the greatest president of his lifetime.

That contradiction deserves a direct answer before Michigan voters choose their next governor.