Mike Rogers’s 9/11 accusation against Abdul El-Sayed

6 latest responses. Dates: April 7, 2026 to August 6, 2026

Choose any combination. Selected filters stay active until you remove them or choose All responses.

6 responses on this page

1. Editorial labelDefended or excusedAlyssa BrouilletBrouillet defended Rogers’s accusation by pointing to El-Sayed’s refusal to disavow Piker’s comments.August 6, 2026Role at the time: Spokesperson for Mike Rogers’s U.S. Senate campaign

   "Abdul was asked point blank if he’d disavow Hasan Piker’s comments, and he wouldn’t do it."

   Context, editorial note, and sources

   Responding to

   Abdul El-Sayed believes the United States deserved the September 11 attacks.

   Brouillet defended Rogers’s accusation by pointing to El-Sayed’s refusal to disavow Piker’s comments.

   Why we used this label

   She supplied the campaign’s rationale for the accusation in a direct response to a request for evidence.

   Before the statement

   PolitiFact asked the Rogers campaign to substantiate the accusation; its source list dates the email exchange to August 6.

   After the statement

   The report contrasted this rationale with El-Sayed’s explicit rejection of justifying 9/11. The private email itself is not reproduced in the public source; its attributed quotation is original interview reporting.

   PolitiFact documents Rogers’s accusation and his campaign’s supporting rationaleAlyssa Brouillet quotation; linked full April 7 event at 3:12:12; sources identify August 6 campaign email exchange

   Read statementLink to this statement
2. Editorial labelCondemnedMike RogersRogers attributed support for the idea that America deserved 9/11 to El-Sayed and used it to argue that his opponent was an extremist.August 5, 2026Role at the time: Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, issuing an official campaign statement

   "Never in a million years did I think that I would be running against someone who believes America deserved 9/11."

   Context, editorial note, and sources

   Responding to

   Abdul El-Sayed believes the United States deserved the September 11 attacks.

   Rogers attributed support for the idea that America deserved 9/11 to El-Sayed and used it to argue that his opponent was an extremist.

   Why we used this label

   The accusation is an explicit adverse judgment about El-Sayed’s beliefs and fitness for office.

   Before the statement

   The campaign release followed the Michigan primary and criticized El-Sayed across multiple policy areas.

   After the statement

   The release did not quote El-Sayed endorsing the attacks. His campaign’s later explanation relied on association and reluctance to disavow Piker, which must be distinguished from El-Sayed’s own recorded denial.

   Mike Rogers’s August 5 statement following the Michigan Senate primary - Mike RogersParagraph beginning with Rogers’s counterterrorism experience and ending with the accusation about America deserving 9/11

   Read statementLink to this statement
3. Editorial labelChallenged the characterizationAbdul El-SayedResponding to attacks from Rogers and other Republicans after the primary, El-Sayed characterized their approach as divisive and anti-Muslim rather than an accurate account of his priorities.August 5, 2026Role at the time: Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, interviewed by Jacob Soboroff on All In

   "So they’re going to use Islamophobia because their ideas are tired."

   Context, editorial note, and sources

   Responding to

   Abdul El-Sayed believes the United States deserved the September 11 attacks.

   Responding to attacks from Rogers and other Republicans after the primary, El-Sayed characterized their approach as divisive and anti-Muslim rather than an accurate account of his priorities.

   Why we used this label

   He directly challenged how opponents were presenting him; the characterization of their tactics is attributed to El-Sayed, not asserted by DI as a motive finding.

   Before the statement

   Rogers had issued his 9/11 accusation after the primary. The interview also addressed other Republican criticism, so the selected quotation is not exclusive to the 9/11 claim.

   After the statement

   El-Sayed emphasized shared concerns about family welfare, health care and economic conditions, and challenged Rogers to debates. His earlier explicit rejection of justifying 9/11 is recorded separately.

   El-Sayed responds to Rogers’s attacks in his August 5 All In interviewOriginal interview embedded at top, dated August 5; paragraphs quoting El-Sayed on division and Islamophobia

   PolitiFact documents Rogers’s accusation and his campaign’s supporting rationaleAlyssa Brouillet quotation; linked full April 7 event at 3:12:12; sources identify August 6 campaign email exchange

   Read statementLink to this statement
4. Editorial labelCondemnedJon FavreauDiscussing the NRSC ad that linked El-Sayed to Piker’s 9/11 remark, Favreau questioned mixing a Muslim-extremism portrayal with a tax attack. He argued that a coherent economic-extremism argument would need different supporting material.August 5, 2026Role at the time: Pod Save America co-host discussing the general-election attack strategy

   "I think you got to pick one."

   Context, editorial note, and sources

   Responding to

   Response to the case

   Discussing the NRSC ad that linked El-Sayed to Piker’s 9/11 remark, Favreau questioned mixing a Muslim-extremism portrayal with a tax attack. He argued that a coherent economic-extremism argument would need different supporting material.

   Why we used this label

   He criticizes how the attack is constructed while acknowledging why campaigns combine unpopular associations. The classification concerns his qualified assessment of the ad, not endorsement or rejection of the belief Rogers attributed to El-Sayed. The wording and speaker sequence were checked against the official full audio.

   Before the statement

   The hosts played an NRSC ad containing Piker’s statement and an allegation that El-Sayed refused to disavow it. Favreau mocked its combination of a religious-extremism portrayal and a tax message; Pfeiffer argued the combination could work.

   After the statement

   Favreau proposed keeping the economic attack coherent, then the discussion turned to El-Sayed’s strategy against Rogers. He did not explicitly endorse the ad’s allegations or give a direct factual assessment of Rogers’s separate statement. This entry is not an explicit refusal to answer and is not a Pod Save the World reaction.

   Bonus: Abdul El-Sayed Wins in Michigan feat. Bernie SandersOfficial full audio 20:06–24:23; Pfeiffer at 22:18–22:21 and Favreau at 22:21–22:23

   Automated transcript of Pod Save America’s August 5 El-Sayed bonus episode20:40–24:33; Favreau at 21:25, 21:39 and 23:04; Pfeiffer at 21:37, 22:13 and 23:37

   Podscripts transcript of Pod Save America’s El-Sayed bonus episodeNRSC ad discussion; block starting 00:20:57 contains Pfeiffer’s qualification and Favreau’s immediate response

   Read statementLink to this statement
5. Editorial labelMixed or conditionalDan PfeifferPfeiffer argued that the NRSC ad’s portrayal of El-Sayed as extreme could make its economic accusations more persuasive to voters. He regarded the combined message as more strategically coherent than some critics did, while qualifying his assessment of the execution. He was assessing effectiveness, not endorsing the allegations.August 5, 2026Role at the time: Pod Save America co-host and political strategist analyzing a Republican campaign ad

   "It's not the best version of that ad, but I understand the argument."

   Context, editorial note, and sources

   Responding to

   Response to the case

   Pfeiffer argued that the NRSC ad’s portrayal of El-Sayed as extreme could make its economic accusations more persuasive to voters. He regarded the combined message as more strategically coherent than some critics did, while qualifying his assessment of the execution. He was assessing effectiveness, not endorsing the allegations.

   Why we used this label

   His qualified argument concerns how the campaign ad might persuade voters. It is not support for Rogers’s claim that El-Sayed believed America deserved the attacks. The wording and speaker sequence were checked against the official full audio.

   Before the statement

   After hearing the NRSC ad, Favreau questioned its mixture of Muslim-extremism imagery and tax claims. Earlier in the episode Pfeiffer said he had donated to El-Sayed after the primary.

   After the statement

   Pfeiffer described the ad as a preview of a larger campaign that could link identity-based attacks and economic claims. Favreau disagreed about the message’s construction. Neither this strategic judgment nor Pfeiffer’s support for El-Sayed supplies a direct response to the truth of Rogers’s separate 9/11 assertion.

   Bonus: Abdul El-Sayed Wins in Michigan feat. Bernie SandersOfficial full audio 20:06–24:23; Pfeiffer at 22:18–22:21 and Favreau at 22:21–22:23

   Automated transcript of Pod Save America’s August 5 El-Sayed bonus episode20:40–24:33; Favreau at 21:25, 21:39 and 23:04; Pfeiffer at 21:37, 22:13 and 23:37

   Podscripts transcript of Pod Save America’s El-Sayed bonus episodeNRSC ad discussion; block starting 00:20:57 contains Pfeiffer’s qualification and Favreau’s immediate response

   Read statementLink to this statement
6. Editorial labelMixed or conditionalAbdul El-SayedEl-Sayed rejected justifying the attacks but defended appearing with Piker, separating agreement with a statement from engaging an ally’s audience.April 7, 2026Role at the time: Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan, interviewed on Fox & Friends

   "Of course I don’t think 9/11 was justified."

   Context, editorial note, and sources

   Responding to

   Appearing at a political event with Hasan Piker does not establish agreement with all of Piker’s statements.

   El-Sayed rejected justifying the attacks but defended appearing with Piker, separating agreement with a statement from engaging an ally’s audience.

   Why we used this label

   He combined rejection of the underlying sentiment with a defense of the campaign appearance; neither unconditional endorsement nor complete disavowal describes both parts.

   Before the statement

   He was asked about Piker’s controversial remarks before their scheduled Michigan campaign events.

   After the statement

   He criticized demands to avoid an appearance because of disagreement. This interview predates Rogers’s August accusation and is included as contrary contextual evidence.

   El-Sayed rejects justifying 9/11 while defending campaigning with Hasan PikerOpening interview quotations about 9/11 and appearing with someone without agreeing; embedded video 6392681742112

   Read statementLink to this statement