Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is under fire from both Republicans and fellow Democrats in Michigan after refusing to fully sever ties with controversial left-wing commentator Hasan Piker, prompting concerns about his political alliances and public statements.
The latest round of criticism comes as Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate race enters the final weeks before absentee ballots are sent out. Republican candidate Mike Rogers, who has President Trump’s endorsement, went on Fox News Thursday night to call El-Sayed’s relationship with Piker “disqualifying” and accused both men of sharing “a disdain for America.” Rogers argued, “He can’t distance himself from Hasan Piker at all. He is clearly his running mate in this. He came as his closer and still maintains his relationship. They don’t like America. I think that is disqualifying.”
Hasan Piker, known for his far-left commentary, created outrage in 2019 with his declaration that “America deserved 9/11.” Piker has appeared alongside El-Sayed at key campaign moments, including on the eve of Michigan’s Democratic primary, fueling bipartisan unease over the Senate hopeful’s political alliances. El-Sayed, who narrowly won the primary on August 4, has faced repeated demands to cut ties with Piker, especially as concerns about antisemitism and extremism have grown louder in the party and beyond.
Democratic voices have joined the calls for distance. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, himself a Democrat, denounced the El-Sayed-Piker relationship in a social media post, calling it “a buddy movie about defending Hamas + a parade of deeply antisemitic rhetoric.” Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who lost to El-Sayed in the primary, has continued to press the issue: “It certainly makes sense to get rid of this Hasan Piker affiliation. I’m calling for that. I’ve continued to call on that.”
El-Sayed has sought to downplay the controversy, dismissing the effort to make the race about Piker as “kind of laughable.” In a statement released by his campaign after Piker’s comments resurfaced, El-Sayed wrote, “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own daughters. Antisemitism is a scourge, and we need to address it in all its forms. And I stand against any rhetoric that puts the community at risk.” He added, “But I want to be crystal clear, nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople.” El-Sayed also called Piker’s 2019 remark “dumb” in a recent interview.
With just 27 days until Michigan begins mailing absentee ballots, the stakes are rising for both campaigns. The seat is one of 35 up for grabs in 2026, with Democrats needing a net gain of four to seize Senate control. Michigan’s last Senate race, in 2024, was decided by less than half a percentage point, with Democrat Elissa Slotkin narrowly defeating Rogers. This time, polling shows the contest is just as tight, with an average of the last five polls giving El-Sayed 45.8% to Rogers’ 45%, according to 270toWin.
The controversy around El-Sayed’s political associations isn’t new. Jewish voters and party moderates have repeatedly raised alarms about his openness to far-left allies and willingness to appear with figures like Piker, as detailed in previous reporting on his unwillingness to cut ties. These concerns came to a head after Piker’s comments made headlines again this week, leading to El-Sayed’s formal campaign statement on Jewish safety and antisemitism.
Even as El-Sayed insists the campaign should focus on “gas, groceries, good schools, and healthcare,” Rogers has kept up the pressure. In a sharp exchange over the race’s focus, Rogers said, “El-Sayed wants to represent Palestine. I want to represent Michigan.” El-Sayed fired back, “He’s so proud of himself, look at him. He practiced that line all weekend at his AIPAC fundraisers,” referencing the pro-Israel group that spent millions backing Stevens in the primary.
El-Sayed, 41, has attracted controversy throughout his campaign for his outspoken left-wing views and alliances, including a push for more government control over technology policy, a stance that has drawn attention for outflanking even prominent progressives like Bernie Sanders, as seen in his recent AI policy proposals. Critics argue that his willingness to court figures like Piker, and his past statements about Egypt and America, add to a pattern of rhetoric out of step with Michigan’s mainstream voters.
This is not the first time El-Sayed has come under bipartisan fire for his public statements and online activity. Past controversies, including deleted social media posts about September 11 and heated exchanges with Republicans and Democrats alike, have been documented in recent reporting on his campaign history. The current uproar over Piker’s involvement echoes those earlier disputes, fueling a perception among critics that El-Sayed is unwilling or unable to draw clear lines on extremism and divisive political speech.
The Center Square has reported that, even after national party figures and former rivals urged distance from Piker, El-Sayed has stopped short of a full break, asserting instead that “nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople.” That stance has not quieted criticism from either party.
The clash over El-Sayed’s relationship with Piker is just the latest in a series of internal battles among Michigan Democrats and the broader party, as left-wing and establishment factions vie for control. The ideological divide has played out in public, with figures like Piker and El-Sayed openly dismissing party elders’ warnings and even brushing off high-profile critics, as covered in previous analysis of party divisions.
For Michigan voters, the controversy has become a test not just of El-Sayed’s judgment, but of the direction of the Democratic Party itself. As absentee ballots approach, Rogers and his supporters are betting that El-Sayed’s record will prove too far out of step for the state’s swing voters. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders must decide whether to close ranks or risk further alienating the moderate and Jewish voters whose support could decide the race.
When politicians refuse to draw a line against extremism, even when it comes from their own side, they leave ordinary voters to pay the price for elite feuds and ideological posturing.
