Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed deleted a 2021 post comparing 9/11 to U.S. military actions and now faces mounting pressure from fellow Democrats to denounce controversial streamer Hasan Piker.
Abdul El-Sayed, locked in one of the country’s toughest Senate races, is under fire after a deleted 2021 social-media post resurfaced and top Democrats demanded he cut ties with Hasan Piker, a California-based social-media personality who once claimed “America deserved 9/11.”
The controversy centers on a post El-Sayed made on September 11, 2021, which was later scrubbed but remains archived. In it, El-Sayed wrote, “Today, I mourn the 3K lives, 6K injuries, & infrastructural devastation in NYC, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my faith. Tomorrow, I’ll mourn ~1M lives, millions of injuries, & infrastructural devastation in 3 countries, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my country.” The post referenced the nearly 3,000 people killed and the devastation of the 9/11 attacks, then immediately drew a parallel to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and fighting in Pakistan during the 2000s, events attributed to U.S. military action. The original post can still be viewed on the Wayback Machine, even after its deletion.
As the country approaches the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, El-Sayed’s remarks have not gone unnoticed. Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers has highlighted the post and El-Sayed’s ongoing association with Hasan Piker, who has a long record of inflammatory statements about the United States, including his notorious “America deserved 9/11” remark in 2019.
But it isn’t just Republicans raising concerns. A chorus of prominent Democrats is calling on El-Sayed to disavow Piker and clarify his own stance on the meaning of September 11.
Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania directly challenged El-Sayed to address his relationship with Piker, saying on Fox News, “I just want to issue a dare, continue to campaign with Hasan Piker right now. You’re in a general election now, I dare you, I dare you.” Rep. Brad Schneider of Illinois was even blunter, declaring, “Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has so far refused to condemn the words of Hasan Piker, his friend and frequent campaign surrogate,” and adding, “It is disingenuous for El-Sayed to try and distance himself from Piker without specifically condemning, refuting, or even just rejecting Piker’s hateful rhetoric.”
Other Democratic figures have weighed in as well. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, and Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen all publicly condemned Piker’s rhetoric. In Michigan, El-Sayed’s former primary rivals, Rep. Haley Stevens and state senator Mallory McMorrow, urged him to “get rid of this Hasan Piker affiliation,” with McMorrow stating, Piker is “not somebody that you should be campaigning with.”
Some Democrats have gone a step further. Rep. Hillary Scholten and state senator Jeremy Moss refrained from endorsing El-Sayed at all in response to the controversy, underscoring the seriousness with which party insiders are treating the matter.
The now-deleted post is at the heart of the uproar. In it, El-Sayed appeared to equate the 9/11 terror attacks with the consequences of U.S. military interventions that followed, writing that he would “mourn” both the thousands killed in New York and the estimated one million lives lost in three unnamed countries. The New York Post reported that El-Sayed’s reference was widely understood as a criticism of America’s actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
El-Sayed’s campaign quickly moved to defend him, telling CBS News, “Abdul has always unequivocally condemned terrorism and the September 11 attacks.” The campaign also lashed out at Republican Mike Rogers, accusing him of “bad-faith lies meant to mislead Michiganders.” But El-Sayed himself has refused to directly weigh in on the Piker controversy, telling reporters, “I am not interested in a conversation about a social media person in California.”
This reluctance has not satisfied critics inside his own party, who argue that the stakes of a Senate race demand clear answers. As Rep. Schneider put it, attempts to distance himself from Piker without “specifically condemning, refuting, or even just rejecting Piker’s hateful rhetoric” are not enough.
Piker, described as a multimillionaire streamer and frequent campaign surrogate for El-Sayed, has a history of incendiary statements. His 2019 claim that “America deserved 9/11” drew widespread condemnation, and his more recent comments on Middle East conflicts have only added fuel to the fire. Piker reportedly described his own 2019 remark as “inappropriate,” but also said it “doesn’t change the dynamic for me.”
The pressure on El-Sayed comes at a critical moment. The Michigan race is considered one of the most competitive in the country, and Democrats are keenly aware that any perception of softness on national security or disrespect for the memory of September 11 could alienate voters. The fact that leading Democrats are publicly calling out one of their own is a sign of just how radioactive Piker’s comments, and El-Sayed’s response, have become.
Even as El-Sayed’s campaign insists he has always “unequivocally condemned terrorism and the September 11 attacks,” the deletion of his 2021 post and his refusal to directly address Piker’s rhetoric have left many in his own party unsatisfied. The spectacle of Democratic senators, House members, and former rivals all demanding El-Sayed take a stand against Piker underscores a broader problem: when party leaders tolerate or excuse extreme views among their own, it becomes harder to credibly call out the other side.
As the anniversary of September 11 approaches, Michigan voters are left to judge whether El-Sayed’s words and actions match the gravity of the moment, and whether his party will hold its own accountable when it matters most.
When leaders minimize or dodge their own side’s worst rhetoric, it’s the voters, and the country, who end up paying the price.
