Article Type: Broadcast Recap
Broadcast Date: October 20, 2026
Watch: Episode 1766 on Rumble
In Episode 1766 of America First, Nicholas J. Fuentes condemned a campaign advertisement released by Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy featuring the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent, Amy Acton.
The advertisement drew widespread criticism after attention turned to Acton’s childhood. She has publicly described being sexually abused by her stepfather, who was indicted for raping her in 1978. Acton and her brother were removed from their mother’s custody, yet their mother remained married to the accused man until his death.
Fuentes was particularly outraged that Ramaswamy’s campaign stood by the advertisement and reportedly committed $4 million to airing it statewide.
He also criticized Dinesh D’Souza and Megyn Kelly for defending Ramaswamy, questioned the loyalty of conservative media figures to the Republican establishment, and revisited a decade of unfulfilled Republican campaign promises.
Ramaswamy’s Struggling Campaign in Ohio
Fuentes opened the show with a look at Ohio’s gubernatorial race and the difficulties Ramaswamy was facing ahead of the midterm elections.
Ohio was once among the country’s most important swing states, regularly attracting national attention during presidential elections. Since 2016, however, it has become a Republican stronghold, with Donald Trump carrying the state by comfortable margins.
Fuentes stressed that Ramaswamy was struggling in a state Republicans should have been favored to win.
A Marist poll conducted in mid-October showed Acton leading Ramaswamy 50% to 43% among likely voters. Other polling also placed Acton ahead, although the size of her lead varied.
“This was a winnable race,” Fuentes said.
He believed Ramaswamy’s unpopularity was turning what should have been a favorable election into a serious liability for Republicans.
Fuentes also worried about the effect on Ohio’s Senate race between Republican incumbent Jon Husted and Democrat Sherrod Brown. A poor showing by Ramaswamy, he warned, could hurt Husted and potentially contribute to Republicans losing control of the Senate.
Ramaswamy had already spent heavily on his campaign, including substantial amounts of his own money. His polling numbers remained troubling, and Fuentes believed the latest advertisement would make matters worse.
The Amy Acton Advertisement and Her Childhood
Ramaswamy’s campaign released an attack advertisement featuring Donna Arthur, Acton’s estranged biological mother. In the advertisement, Arthur questioned her daughter’s honesty, disputed her accounts of childhood hardship, and urged Ohio voters not to elect her governor.
“She is a liar,” Arthur said. She also challenged Acton’s claims about experiencing homelessness and living in a tent as a child.
Fuentes acknowledged that featuring an opponent’s family member in a political advertisement was not unprecedented. He referenced Democratic campaigns that had used relatives of Republican politicians, including Paul Gosar, to criticize them publicly. He did not believe using a candidate’s family member was automatically out of bounds, particularly given the increasingly personal nature of political campaigns.
But this situation was different.
Acton, a physician and former director of the Ohio Department of Health, has spoken publicly about the abuse and instability she experienced as a child. According to Acton, her stepfather sexually abused her when she was between approximately ten and twelve years old. Her biological father reported the abuse to authorities, and her stepfather, Cledith Arthur, was arrested and charged with rape in 1978.
Court and police documents obtained by the Associated Press confirm that Arthur was indicted by a grand jury in 1978 on charges of raping Acton. He pleaded not guilty but fled Ohio before standing trial. Arrest warrants were issued after he failed to appear in court, and he died in 2004 without ever being tried for the charges against him.
Acton and her younger brother, Philip Stearns, were removed from their mother’s custody following the arrest. Their mother remained married to Arthur until his death. Acton has also spoken about periods of homelessness and has said she has not seen her mother since 1978.
Despite this history, Ramaswamy’s campaign featured Donna Arthur in an advertisement attacking her daughter’s credibility.
Fuentes read a statement from Stearns condemning the decision to involve their mother.
Stearns described the advertisement as a cruel attempt to use his sister’s childhood suffering against her. He confirmed that both children had been removed from their mother’s custody after the arrest and that their mother continued her relationship with the man accused of raping Acton. Fuentes agreed with the brother’s condemnation.
“And you know what? That is true. That is 100% true,” he said.
Fuentes Questions How the Campaign Approved the Advertisement
What made the decision even more difficult to understand was that Acton’s childhood was already public knowledge. She had discussed the abuse and her family circumstances in interviews years before entering the governor’s race, including a 2019 interview with The Vindicator.
Fuentes questioned how anyone involved in Ramaswamy’s campaign could have overlooked such important information.
“And by the way, did nobody bother to investigate this? Did they seriously run this ad?” he asked.
He noted that Acton had openly discussed her experiences during the campaign.
“I don’t know how they couldn’t, though, because she talks about it on the campaign trail,” Fuentes said. “It’s been public knowledge for seven, eight years.” He wanted to know who approved the advertisement and whether anyone involved had objected.
“So then who was responsible for the ad? Was there no process where someone along the way said, maybe this is a bad idea?”
Fuentes suspected that concerns may have been raised but dismissed. “I imagine maybe that was raised and probably they were overruled by Vivek Ramaswamy,” he said. Fuentes believed the decision showed extraordinarily poor judgment.
He was equally disturbed by Ramaswamy’s response once the controversy became public. Rather than withdrawing the advertisement, the campaign confirmed its plans to promote it on television. According to Axios, approximately $4 million was being committed to airing the advertisement statewide.
Fuentes questioned how the campaign could continue promoting it after the circumstances surrounding Acton’s mother became widely known.
Fuentes Condemns Acton’s Mother and Ramaswamy
Fuentes spent considerable time discussing the responsibility parents have to protect their children. He was particularly disturbed that Acton’s mother had remained with the man accused of raping her daughter and was now publicly attacking that same daughter decades later.
“It’s a horrible story. It’s a tragic story,” he said.
Fuentes argued that childhood sexual abuse was a matter that should transcend political differences. He condemned the alleged abuse and was especially angered by Acton’s mother’s decision to remain with the accused man after her children were removed from her custody.
“It is the deepest, most disgraceful betrayal possible,” Fuentes said.
Acton had managed to build a successful career despite her difficult childhood. She became a physician, served as Ohio’s health director, and was now running for governor. Fuentes said her mother should have been seeking forgiveness rather than participating in a campaign against her.
“She should be on her knees begging for forgiveness and crying,” he said. “She should be proud that her daughter became something in spite of her own betrayal of her child. Instead, she’s trying to hurt her daughter.”
Fuentes argued that Arthur had no credibility to speak against her daughter’s character, given that she had remained with the man accused of raping Acton even after her children were removed from her custody.
“This is not a mother. This is a monster,” he declared.
His condemnation extended to Ramaswamy for giving Arthur a national platform. Fuentes was particularly critical of Ramaswamy’s comments to reporters when questioned about the advertisement. Ramaswamy defended the campaign’s actions by arguing that Acton had made the election personal and was refusing to debate him.
The campaign’s refusal to withdraw the ad only reinforced his criticism.
“The ad is absolutely sick and depraved and disgusting,” Fuentes said. He viewed the controversy as evidence of a candidate willing to cross serious moral boundaries in pursuit of political victory.
Ramaswamy’s Ambition, Business Career, and American Identity
Fuentes continued his criticism of Ramaswamy by challenging the candidate’s repeated references to America’s founding fathers. He accused Ramaswamy of comparing himself to men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson while displaying none of the qualities Fuentes believed defined their leadership.
“Vivek Ramaswamy, you are not fit to shine the shoes of George Washington or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton,” he declared.
Fuentes pointed specifically to George Washington’s willingness to risk his life during the American Revolution. He argued that Washington had been motivated by honor and devotion to his country rather than personal recognition or political advancement.
“When George Washington fought for this country he pledged his life his treasure his sacred honor he was willing to die and be hanged for our independence,” Fuentes said.
He also emphasized Washington’s modesty when chosen to command the Continental Army, contrasting it with what he described as Ramaswamy’s constant self-promotion.
“He didn’t get up and advocate in favor of himself when they chose him to lead the army. On the contrary, he didn’t talk at all.”
Fuentes said that the Founding Fathers understood public service as a responsibility that demanded personal sacrifice. He contrasted that understanding of leadership with Ramaswamy’s political ambition, accusing him of treating public office as another accomplishment to add to his résumé.
Fuentes used the Amy Acton advertisement to illustrate that contrast. Ramaswamy’s willingness to involve Acton’s estranged mother, despite the circumstances surrounding her childhood abuse, demonstrated a disregard for the honor and personal integrity he associated with America’s founders.
Fuentes also questioned Ramaswamy’s business record. “Vivek Ramaswamy is a billionaire. What has he ever built?” he asked. He contrasted Ramaswamy’s pharmaceutical ventures with Elon Musk’s work in electric vehicles, rockets, and satellites. Fuentes then turned to the decline of American manufacturing, rejecting the suggestion that workers themselves were responsible for the economic struggles of the Rust Belt. He blamed trade agreements, outsourcing, and immigration policy, while criticizing Ramaswamy’s attitude toward American workers.
Dinesh D’Souza’s Defense of Ramaswamy
Fuentes next turned his attention to Dinesh D’Souza, questioning why the conservative commentator appeared so eager to defend Ramaswamy whenever he faced public criticism.
He recalled previous controversies in which D’Souza had defended Ramaswamy, including an incident at a campaign rally where Ramaswamy was ridiculed for struggling to lift a small child.
According to Fuentes, D’Souza responded to the Amy Acton advertisement by questioning her account of childhood sexual abuse and suggesting there was insufficient evidence that her stepfather had committed the alleged offenses. “He says that Amy Acton is lying. She was never sexually assaulted. There’s no record of her stepfather raping her,” Fuentes said, characterizing D’Souza’s response. Fuentes said D’Souza subsequently deleted several posts defending Ramaswamy and questioning Acton’s allegations.
He then questioned why D’Souza consistently came to Ramaswamy’s defense, arguing that their shared Indian heritage was influencing his political loyalties. “Why is Dinesh D’Souza always defending Vivek Ramaswamy?” Fuentes asked.
He answered his own question. “This is called racialism. This is called tribalism,” he said.
Fuentes argued that D’Souza’s behavior contradicted the political philosophy he had promoted throughout his career. He pointed out that D’Souza had repeatedly condemned racial identity politics, defended America’s multiracial character, and argued that immigrants could become fully American by adopting the country’s language, religion, culture, and founding principles. Yet D’Souza’s response to criticism of Ramaswamy showed that those commitments had not displaced his attachment to his ancestral identity.
Fuentes emphasized that D’Souza had adopted many of the cultural and political characteristics typically associated with assimilation. He was educated in the United States, spoke English, practiced Christianity, and had spent decades defending conservative American political values.
Despite those qualifications, Fuentes argued that D’Souza continued to identify with and defend other Indians on the basis of their shared heritage. He questioned what that meant for the broader idea of assimilation, asking whether adopting American customs and institutions was sufficient to overcome ethnic loyalties.
“If he can’t be really assimilated, then who can?” Fuentes asked.
He also accused D’Souza of holding a double standard by condemning racial identity politics among white Americans while allegedly practicing a similar form of ethnic favoritism himself.
Fuentes openly acknowledged his own racial identitarian beliefs, drawing a comparison between himself and D’Souza. He argued that both men were motivated by what they believed served the interests of their respective racial or ethnic groups, but accused D’Souza of refusing to acknowledge that motivation.
Fuentes used the controversy to challenge D’Souza’s public opposition to racial identity politics and to advance his own argument that ethnic loyalties persist even after extensive cultural assimilation.
Megyn Kelly and the Republican Media Establishment
Fuentes then turned to Megyn Kelly, who he said had also defended Ramaswamy following the advertisement’s release. According to Fuentes, Kelly questioned the account surrounding Acton’s childhood and argued that Ramaswamy’s campaign had not acted improperly.
He was particularly frustrated by her response because of her previous criticism of Trump and the Republican Party.
Fuentes recalled Kelly repeatedly criticizing the administration over the Iran war, the handling of the Epstein files, and the failure to fulfill major campaign promises. During those controversies, Kelly had presented herself as an outspoken critic of Republican leadership. Yet her defense of Ramaswamy showed how quickly conservative commentators could return to supporting the party when an election approached.
He accused conservative media figures of criticizing Republicans for months, expressing the anger of disappointed voters, and then urging those same voters to support Republican candidates anyway. Fuentes argued that this cycle had repeated itself for years. Throughout the election cycle, commentators would criticize Republicans over immigration, foreign policy, censorship, and government spending.
But as November approached, the same voices would warn that Democrats posed such a serious threat that Republicans had to be supported regardless of their record. Fuentes believed conservative media had become a way of allowing Republican voters to express their dissatisfaction without ever holding the party accountable at the ballot box.
He also questioned the relative silence of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens regarding Ramaswamy. “Where’s Tucker? Where’s Candace?” he asked. Both had become prominent voices criticizing Republican leadership, but he had not seen them take a strong public position against Ramaswamy.
He made clear that he could tolerate disagreements over whether voters should support Republican candidates generally. Ramaswamy, however, was a separate matter for him. Fuentes believed the Ohio race had become an important test of whether conservative commentators were willing to oppose a Republican candidate rather than automatically defend the party.
Ten Years of Republican Promises
Fuentes continued by reviewing the Republican Party’s record over the past decade, arguing that conservative voters had repeatedly supported the party despite its failure to deliver on major campaign promises.
He began with the 2022 midterms, recalling how congressional Republicans distanced themselves from Trump following the events of January 6, 2021. “In the 2022 midterms, Republicans had just betrayed Trump. It was like Julius Caesar,” Fuentes said.
He accused Republican leaders of abandoning Trump after benefiting from his presidency, particularly his role in reshaping the federal judiciary and securing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Fuentes was especially critical of Kevin McCarthy, who was positioned to become Speaker of the House following the midterms. He questioned why Trump supporters were expected to help elect a Republican majority led by politicians who had distanced themselves from Trump.
Despite those grievances, Fuentes recalled that voters were urged to support Republicans because Democrats would otherwise worsen the immigration crisis.
“They didn’t give us the 46,000 hours of Capitol Hill security camera footage from J6. They didn’t use the debt ceiling to leverage Biden in any way to get concessions. They didn’t reduce or get spending under control in any way,” he said. Yet by the 2024 presidential election, conservative voters were once again being told to support Republicans because the alternative was too dangerous.
“Well, it’s better than the alternative. Surely it will get better incrementally. I don’t know. Has it?”
Fuentes then turned to Trump’s second administration, contrasting the promises made during the 2024 campaign with his assessment of the administration’s record in 2026.
He criticized the war with Iran, the handling of the Epstein files, inflation, federal spending, and the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. “No mass deportations. We’ve met the H-1B cap every year,” he complained.
He also criticized proposals to admit more international students and increase military spending, arguing that both contradicted the promises Trump made during his campaign.
“It’s been 10 fucking years. Has anything gotten better?” Fuentes asked.
He traced those frustrations back to Trump’s original 2016 campaign, particularly the promises to build a border wall, deport illegal immigrants, and end American involvement in costly foreign conflicts. Fuentes argued that the United States was now involved in another Middle Eastern war despite years of Republican promises to pursue a different foreign policy.
He also questioned whether Republicans deserved credit for improvements in online speech protections. Referring to Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter during the Biden administration, Fuentes argued that one of the most significant changes to online censorship had occurred because of a private business decision rather than Republican legislation.
“Yeah, it’s because someone outside the Republican Party, a rich person, just made a decision. It had nothing to do with Republicans,” he said.
Fuentes then returned to the approaching midterms, criticizing conservative commentators who were warning voters about the consequences of a Democratic victory. He referenced arguments involving immigration, censorship, political prosecutions, and the ongoing unrest in France, which he believed were being used to pressure frustrated conservatives into supporting Republican candidates once again.
“Look at France. Wait, look over there. Look at France,” he said, mocking what he considered an attempt to redirect voters’ attention away from the party’s record.
Fuentes argued that the same warnings were repeated during every election cycle, regardless of how many promises Republicans failed to fulfill. “How many cycles have they done nothing? And every single cycle, even though we’ve been angry for 10 years, everyone’s going to vote every time,” he said.
He believed Republican politicians had grown accustomed to receiving conservative votes without being held accountable for their performance.
Fuentes argued that Republican politicians, consultants, and lobbyists were enriching themselves while ordinary Americans continued to struggle with inflation, unemployment, immigration, and the consequences of foreign wars.
“You are losing. Fuck them. It’s their turn to lose,” he declared.
He rejected the argument that voters should continue supporting Republicans simply to prevent Democrats from taking power. Fuentes instead expressed support for Democrats winning control of Congress, arguing that a major Republican defeat would force party leaders to confront the consequences of their decisions.
He made clear that his position was not based on agreement with Democratic policies. Rather, he believed Republicans had repeatedly taken their supporters for granted and needed to experience the same political setbacks their voters had endured.
“They can’t win anymore. It’s time for them to lose,” he said.
Fuentes maintained that Republicans would have little incentive to change course if they continued winning elections despite repeatedly failing to deliver on their promises.
Midterm Concerns and Susie Wiles
Earlier in the broadcast, Fuentes also previewed a story involving White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and reported tensions inside the Trump administration. He discussed speculation that Wiles could leave her position following the midterm elections, particularly if Republicans suffered major losses.
Fuentes also raised questions about Trump advisers James Blair and Chris LaCivita and their reported political work in Republika Srpska, an autonomous entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. He questioned why individuals connected to Trump’s political operation would be involved in a foreign election so close to the American midterms.
Fuentes also mentioned Wiles’s daughter, Katie Wiles, in connection with the reported activities. He suggested that political consultants pursuing opportunities abroad could be preparing for changes within the administration.
Although he intended to discuss the matter in greater detail, he postponed the segment until the following episode.
Super Chats: Christianity, Tucker Carlson, and Political Strategy
Fuentes spent the remainder of the broadcast responding to Super Chats on religion, conservative commentators, political strategy, and questions from viewers.
He began by criticizing Dan Bilzerian’s recent comments about Christianity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. He also took issue with remarks made by Sneako and Jake Shields concerning Christianity and Catholicism.
Fuentes argued that several figures who initially gained attention for criticizing Israel had begun adopting Islamic religious arguments against Christianity. He accused them of shifting their criticism toward Christian beliefs, particularly the authority of Scripture, the teachings of St. Paul, and the divinity of Christ. He rejected claims that St. Paul had fundamentally changed Christianity or that Jesus had never claimed to be God.
The discussion then turned to Tucker Carlson and his relationships with influential figures in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Fuentes questioned Carlson’s activities in the Gulf states and raised allegations of foreign influence, although he offered no evidence during the broadcast to substantiate those claims.
Another viewer asked about confronting Buckley Carlson at an upcoming conference. Fuentes suggested asking specific questions about Palantir, Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, mass surveillance, and the Carlson family’s professional and political connections. He told the viewer to focus on those relationships rather than make the exchange about Fuentes or his personal disagreements with the Carlson family.
Election strategy also resurfaced when a viewer asked whether to support Republican Ken Paxton despite disagreeing with some of his positions. Fuentes reiterated his preference for a Democratic wave in the midterms, including Democratic control of the Senate.
Several viewers sought advice about education, employment, and becoming more involved in political organizing. Fuentes congratulated one viewer who had quit marijuana, secured steady employment, and begun working toward starting a business. He also praised those creating and sharing clips from his broadcasts, describing it as a useful way to develop skills, make connections, and become more involved.
The conversation eventually shifted to livestreaming culture. Fuentes distinguished political commentary from content creators who rely on personal disputes and manufactured drama to attract attention. He argued that commentary focused on subjects such as politics, technology, and sports provides audiences with something worthwhile, while constant controversy serves little purpose beyond generating views.
He also explained that appealing to everyone was never his objective.
“I’m not here to make friends. I’m here to win,” he said. Fuentes said his goal was to reach intelligent, ambitious young men who might eventually hold positions of power or influence.
Other questions touched on Catholic traditionalism, capital punishment, video games, and personal advice. When one viewer suggested that the expense of incarceration could justify broader use of executions, Fuentes rejected the argument, maintaining that operating prisons was a legitimate responsibility of government.
After finishing the Super Chats, Fuentes thanked his supporters and brought the broadcast to a close. He had earlier promised to return to the Susie Wiles story in the following episode.
Editorial Note: AF Observer is an independent publication and is not affiliated with Nick Fuentes or America First. This article summarizes and analyzes statements made during the broadcast. Claims and opinions are attributed to the speaker and should not be read as independent endorsements by AF Observer.
Discover more from AF Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.