Case
Mike Rogers’s 9/11 accusation against Abdul El-Sayed
August 5, 2026
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Mike Rogers attributed a belief about 9/11 to Abdul El-Sayed based on his association with Hasan Piker. El-Sayed rejected that belief and challenged the premise that campaigning together establishes agreement.
Question in dispute
Appearing at a political event with Hasan Piker does not establish agreement with all of Piker’s statements.
Overview
After Michigan’s August 2026 Senate primary, Mike Rogers asserted that Abdul El-Sayed believed America deserved the September 11 attacks. His campaign defended that accusation by citing El-Sayed’s association with Hasan Piker and reluctance to disavow him. El-Sayed had explicitly rejected justifying 9/11 and argued that appearing with a person did not imply agreement. He described Rogers’s attacks as an effort to divide voters through Islamophobia. Pod Save America hosts Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer later debated the strategy and construction of a related Republican ad without endorsing its factual claims.
Rogers’s August 5 campaign statement (opens in a new tab) concerns a belief he attributed to El-Sayed, not a quotation spoken by El-Sayed. The statement associated with Hasan Piker must not be reassigned to a different speaker. In his earlier Fox & Friends interview (opens in a new tab), El-Sayed expressly rejected justifying 9/11 while defending his choice of campaign company.
The competing argument concerns whether declining to disavow an ally warrants an adverse inference about political judgment or beliefs. El-Sayed’s August 5 response (opens in a new tab) called the attacks divisive; the campaign’s August 6 explanation is separately attributed to spokesperson Alyssa Brouillet. This is distinct from DI’s cases about Piker’s other statements and El-Sayed’s Temple Israel remarks. The displayed publication date is August 7, 2026. The April interview is earlier context, not a response to the later Rogers statement. Day-only dates do not establish a precise time of day.
Image: El-Sayed testifying before the U.S. Senate HELP Committee in 2024, not during these campaign exchanges. Public-domain U.S. Senate photograph via Wikimedia Commons (opens in a new tab), cropped by Dispute Index.
In an August 5 Pod Save America episode (opens in a new tab), Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer played an NRSC ad that used Piker’s 9/11 remark and analyzed its campaign strategy. Their statements are classified as mixed or conditional assessments of the ad’s construction and possible effectiveness, not as endorsements of the allegation or direct verdicts on Rogers’s separate attribution.
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What was said
Attributed statement
Abdul El-Sayed believes the United States deserved the September 11 attacks.
- Speaker
- Mike Rogers
- Date
Sources
- 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
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Appearing at a political event with Hasan Piker does not establish agreement with all of Piker’s statements.
- Who made the claim
- Abdul El-Sayed
- Date
Sources
- 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
Arguments
Documented position
Mike Rogers’s August 5 statement and Alyssa Brouillet’s August 6 campaign response.
Campaign associations can be evidence of political judgment
Rogers’s campaign treats continued association with Piker, coupled with reluctance to disavow him, as grounds for an adverse assessment of El-Sayed. The argument asks voters to judge the company a candidate chooses as well as the candidate’s individual statements.
Related claim
Abdul El-Sayed believes the United States deserved the September 11 attacks.
Limit of this argument
A judgment about an association is not proof of a particular belief. El-Sayed explicitly rejected justifying 9/11, so the stronger attribution in Rogers’s statement requires evidence beyond co-appearance.
Sources
- 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
- 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
- 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
Documented position
Abdul El-Sayed, April 7 Fox & Friends interview and August 5 All In interview.
An explicit rejection limits what association can establish
El-Sayed distinguishes outreach to Piker’s audience from agreement with Piker’s statements. His recorded rejection of justifying the attacks directly contradicts the belief attributed to him; his later response challenges using his identity and associations to divide voters.
Related claim
Abdul El-Sayed believes the United States deserved the September 11 attacks.
Limit of this argument
Rejecting that attribution does not prohibit criticism of his decision to campaign with Piker or require voters to find the association acceptable.
Sources
- 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
- 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
Documented position
Mehdi Hasan, in his September 1, 2026 Guardian opinion column.
Scrutinize both candidates’ associations by the same standard
Hasan argues that attention to El-Sayed’s association with Piker has displaced scrutiny of Rogers’s own allies. He contrasts Piker’s campaign appearances with Lorenzo Sewell’s formal role on Rogers’s faith leadership team and calls for comparable questioning of Rogers about Sewell’s rhetoric. His objection concerns unequal scrutiny, not a direct assessment of the specific 9/11 belief attributed to El-Sayed.
Limit of this argument
Hasan explicitly says he is not excusing Piker’s statements or opposing scrutiny of Piker and El-Sayed’s decision to appear with him. His comparison does not itself resolve Rogers’s 9/11 accusation.
Sources
- The media’s Hasan Piker obsession is letting Republican Mike Rogers off the hookConcluding discussion of consistent scrutiny of both candidates, including Hasan’s explicit qualification about Piker
Subject's response
Response from Mike Rogers
Mike RogersIn his September 10 convention speech, Rogers criticized El-Sayed for campaigning with Piker and portrayed their association as sympathy for extremism."Together, they attack America, excuse extremism, and treat our country like the villain."
Context, editorial note, and sources
Responding to
Response to the case
In his September 10 convention speech, Rogers criticized El-Sayed for campaigning with Piker and portrayed their association as sympathy for extremism.
Why we used this label
Rogers directly condemns El-Sayed's association with Piker. In this speech the 9/11-deserved sentiment is attributed to Piker, unlike Rogers's earlier direct assertion about El-Sayed's belief; that difference is preserved without inferring a retraction.
Before the statement
Rogers recalled the September 11 attacks, then identified Piker as the person who thought America deserved them. He described Piker as El-Sayed's running mate, a rhetorical label rather than a literal electoral ticket.
After the statement
He went on to make separate campaign-finance and Temple Israel allegations. El-Sayed's prior rejection of justifying 9/11 and the campaign's September 10 rebuttal remain distinct records. September 10 is verified; 12:00 UTC is a date-only placeholder, not the speech time.
Mike 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."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.
Abdul 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."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.
Abdul El-Sayed
El-Sayed rejected justifying the attacks but defended appearing with Piker, separating agreement with a statement from engaging an ally’s audience.
Read the statement and sourcesResponse record
Other responses
8 latest responses. Dates: April 7, 2026 to September 10, 2026
Choose any combination. Selected filters stay active until you remove them or choose All responses.
2 responses on this page
Editorial labelMixed or conditional 
Dan 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."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 22:21–22:23Automated 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 23:37Podscripts 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 responseEditorial labelMixed or conditional Abdul El-SayedEl-Sayed rejected justifying the attacks but defended appearing with Piker, separating agreement with a statement from engaging an ally’s audience."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
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: April 7, 2026 to September 10, 2026
- Source release
Rogers campaign publishes a collection of 9/11-related testimonials
A September 10 campaign release collected selected statements and linked videos from Jon Turnbull, David Beamer, David and Tricia Nadeau, and Joaquin Guerrero. The videos were issued between September 8 and 10; this event records the compilation's publication, not their recording dates or independent endorsements of every Rogers allegation. No individual video quotation is newly classified here without a full context check. The timestamp is the compilation's verified publication time, not the individual videos' recording times.
Sources
Rogers campaign releases a collection of 9/11-related testimonials - Mike RogersSeptember 10 release with named sections for Jon Turnbull, David Beamer, David and Tricia Nadeau, and Joaquin Guerrero - Reaction
Rogers’s campaign supplies its rationale
Brouillet points to El-Sayed’s reluctance to disavow Piker in an email response documented by PolitiFact the next day.
Sources
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 - Claim
Rogers issues the accusation; El-Sayed challenges the attacks
Rogers’s primary-response statement attributes a belief about 9/11 to El-Sayed. El-Sayed’s evening interview attacks his opponents’ framing as divisive.
Sources
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 9/11El-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 - Other
Earlier context: El-Sayed rejects justifying 9/11
Before campaigning with Piker, El-Sayed rejects the underlying sentiment while defending appearing with people whose views he does not share.
Sources
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
Sources
Mike Rogers’s August 5 statement following the Michigan Senate primaryMike Rogers
Official statement
Mike Rogers’s August 5 statement following the Michigan Senate primary
Relevant passage: Paragraph beginning with Rogers’s counterterrorism experience and ending with the accusation about America deserving 9/11
About this source
Complete campaign statement retrieved. The accusation concerns El-Sayed’s supposed belief; it does not supply a quotation from him endorsing the attacks. Rogers’s campaign subsequently defended the inference by pointing to El-Sayed’s association with Hasan Piker. Other allegations in the release are outside this case.
Source details
- Author
- Mike Rogers; campaign release posted by Hinson Peed
- Published
- Accessed
The media’s Hasan Piker obsession is letting Republican Mike Rogers off the hook
Analysis
The media’s Hasan Piker obsession is letting Republican Mike Rogers off the hook
Relevant passage: Concluding discussion of consistent scrutiny of both candidates, including Hasan’s explicit qualification about Piker
About this source
Original Guardian opinion column, read in full. Hasan contrasts scrutiny of El-Sayed’s association with Piker with coverage of Rogers’s ties to Lorenzo Sewell. He expressly preserves scrutiny of Piker and El-Sayed. This is evidence of Hasan’s argument, not independent verification of each allegation. The date is recorded at day precision; no publication time is asserted.
Source details
- Author
- Mehdi Hasan
- Published
- Accessed
Rogers campaign releases a collection of 9/11-related testimonialsMike Rogers
Official statement
Rogers campaign releases a collection of 9/11-related testimonials
Relevant passage: September 10 release with named sections for Jon Turnbull, David Beamer, David and Tricia Nadeau, and Joaquin Guerrero
About this source
Original campaign release dated September 10 compiling selected quotations and links to videos published between September 8 and 10. This supports the dated compilation/publication action only. Recording times and full audiovisual context for the individual videos have not been established; the quotations are not being made into separate reaction records. Rejection of the claim that America deserved 9/11 does not by itself establish agreement that El-Sayed personally made or holds that claim. The compilation's publication timestamp is verified from the campaign page metadata, not the individual videos' recording times.
Source details
- Author
- Hinson Peed for Rogers for Senate
- Published
- Accessed
Detroit News records Rogers's convention criticism and the El-Sayed campaign's reply
Reporting
Detroit News records Rogers's convention criticism and the El-Sayed campaign's reply
Relevant passage: Paragraph beginning Campaign spokesman Cole Wozniak said in a Sept. 10 statement, and the following paragraph
About this source
Complete original reporting dated September 10, displaying an update time of 8:15 p.m. Eastern. Only the calendar publication date is asserted; 12:00 UTC is a date-only placeholder, not the original publication time. The reporter explicitly dates Cole Wozniak's campaign statement September 10. His reply is recorded in his campaign-spokesperson capacity, not as a personal quotation by El-Sayed. The report also preserves El-Sayed's earlier rejection of justifying 9/11; that earlier context is not a newly made response.
Source details
- Author
- Melissa Nann Burke
- Published
- Accessed
Mike Rogers's full September 10 convention speechMike Rogers
Official statement
Mike Rogers's full September 10 convention speech
Relevant passage: Full campaign-published transcript; passage beginning That's why I never imagined; later Temple Israel passage beginning We saw that tested
About this source
The campaign publishes the complete speech text and links its full recording at https://youtu.be/caqS8edf8p4. The selected wording was checked against the published text, not independently transcribed from the video. Rogers attributes the 9/11-deserved sentiment to Piker and criticizes El-Sayed's association with him; his running-mate language is rhetorical. A separate passage renews the accusation that El-Sayed excused the Temple Israel attack. Other allegations about campaign financing are outside these position records and are not established here. The source publication timestamp is verified from the campaign page metadata; it is not the speech's recording time.
Source details
- Author
- Mike Rogers; published by Alyssa Brouillet for Rogers for Senate
- Published
- Accessed
Automated transcript of Pod Save America’s August 5 El-Sayed bonus episode
Archived source
Automated transcript of Pod Save America’s August 5 El-Sayed bonus episode
Relevant passage: 20:40–24:33; Favreau at 21:25, 21:39 and 23:04; Pfeiffer at 21:37, 22:13 and 23:37
About this source
Complete automatically generated transcript with speaker labels and timestamps, used to locate the exchange. The original publisher corroborates episode identity, date and host names, and a separate Podscripts transcript corroborates the passage with different advertising offsets. The exact wording and speaker sequence were subsequently checked against the official full audio. The ad’s allegations are not the hosts’ own assertions; Pfeiffer’s assessment of persuasive effectiveness is not endorsement of their truth. The page’s automatically generated summaries and topic labels are not used as evidence.
Source details
- Author
- Musixmatch Podcasts; original program: Pod Save America
- Accessed
Podscripts transcript of Pod Save America’s El-Sayed bonus episode
Archived source
Podscripts transcript of Pod Save America’s El-Sayed bonus episode
Relevant passage: NRSC ad discussion; block starting 00:20:57 contains Pfeiffer’s qualification and Favreau’s immediate response
About this source
A second accessible automated transcript of the full episode corroborates the substance and short quotations, apart from rendering Favreau’s contracted wording as “got to” instead of “gotta.” It lists August 6, while the original publisher dates the episode August 5 because the official feed release crossed midnight UTC. Advertising offsets differ from Musixmatch. The exact wording and speaker sequence were subsequently checked against the official full audio; this transcript remains a discovery and locator aid.
Source details
- Author
- Podscripts; original program: Pod Save America
- Accessed
Bonus: Abdul El-Sayed Wins in Michigan feat. Bernie Sanders
Analysis
Bonus: Abdul El-Sayed Wins in Michigan feat. Bernie Sanders
Relevant passage: Official full audio 20:06–24:23; Pfeiffer at 22:18–22:21 and Favreau at 22:21–22:23
About this source
The original publisher dates this bonus Pod Save America episode August 5 and identifies Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer as its hosts. Crooked Media’s page embeds the complete official Audioboom feed. The relevant section was checked directly against that audio after first being located through two separately generated transcripts. Tommy Vietor appears in an advertisement in one transcript, not as a participant in the exchange. This is not a Pod Save the World episode. The hosts assess the strategy of an NRSC ad that includes Piker’s 9/11 statement; they do not endorse the ad’s allegations or issue a factual verdict on Rogers’s separate assertion about El-Sayed’s beliefs.
Source details
- Author
- Pod Save America / Crooked Media; Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer
- Published
- Accessed
PolitiFact documents Rogers’s accusation and his campaign’s supporting rationale
Reporting
PolitiFact documents Rogers’s accusation and his campaign’s supporting rationale
Relevant passage: Alyssa Brouillet quotation; linked full April 7 event at 3:12:12; sources identify August 6 campaign email exchange
About this source
Original reporting includes the campaign’s response to a request for its evidence. Brouillet’s statement is a direct quotation from that exchange, not an inference from silence. The report distinguishes El-Sayed’s explicit rejection of justifying 9/11 from his refusal to disavow an ally. DI records that distinction without adopting PolitiFact’s rating as the case’s purpose.
Source details
- Author
- PolitiFact
- Published
- Accessed
El-Sayed responds to Rogers’s attacks in his August 5 All In interview
Interview
El-Sayed responds to Rogers’s attacks in his August 5 All In interview
Relevant passage: Original interview embedded at top, dated August 5; paragraphs quoting El-Sayed on division and Islamophobia
About this source
The broadcaster embeds the full August 5 interview and quotes El-Sayed’s response; its accompanying article was published August 6. The YouTube mirror is ZxcOGYPE16w. Automated extraction of that mirror returned an incomplete caption manifest, so no claim of a complete independently checked YouTube transcript is made. The broadcaster’s text and PolitiFact corroborate the response and date.
Source details
- Author
- Allison Detzel / MS NOW; interviewee: Abdul El-Sayed
- Published
- Accessed
El-Sayed rejects justifying 9/11 while defending campaigning with Hasan Piker
Interview
El-Sayed rejects justifying 9/11 while defending campaigning with Hasan Piker
Relevant passage: Opening interview quotations about 9/11 and appearing with someone without agreeing; embedded video 6392681742112
About this source
Original broadcaster’s account and embedded interview. El-Sayed rejects justification of 9/11 and argues that sharing an appearance need not signal agreement. This predates Rogers’s August accusation and is included as relevant context, not presented as a response made afterward.
Source details
- Author
- Fox News / Fox & Friends; interviewee: Abdul El-Sayed
- Published
- Accessed
Corrections
(1)
Corrections address errors in our reporting or labels. When a speaker changes their position, we add a separate statement and link it to the earlier one.
Reporting correction
Correction to: Statement by Dan Pfeiffer
- Previous language
- Private review: exact audio wording still requires a listening check.
- Corrected language
- The wording and speaker sequence were checked against the official full audio.
Removed a stale internal review note after checking the quoted passage against Crooked Media’s official full audio. The quote and classification did not change.
This corrects our account of what happened.
The original publisher dates this bonus Pod Save America episode August 5 and identifies Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer as its hosts. Crooked Media’s page embeds the complete official Audioboom feed. The relevant section was checked directly against that audio after first being located through two separately generated transcripts. Tommy Vietor appears in an advertisement in one transcript, not as a participant in the exchange. This is not a Pod Save the World episode. The hosts assess the strategy of an NRSC ad that includes Piker’s 9/11 statement; they do not endorse the ad’s allegations or issue a factual verdict on Rogers’s separate assertion about El-Sayed’s beliefs.
A second accessible automated transcript of the full episode corroborates the substance and short quotations, apart from rendering Favreau’s contracted wording as “got to” instead of “gotta.” It lists August 6, while the original publisher dates the episode August 5 because the official feed release crossed midnight UTC. Advertising offsets differ from Musixmatch. The exact wording and speaker sequence were subsequently checked against the official full audio; this transcript remains a discovery and locator aid.
Complete automatically generated transcript with speaker labels and timestamps, used to locate the exchange. The original publisher corroborates episode identity, date and host names, and a separate Podscripts transcript corroborates the passage with different advertising offsets. The exact wording and speaker sequence were subsequently checked against the official full audio. The ad’s allegations are not the hosts’ own assertions; Pfeiffer’s assessment of persuasive effectiveness is not endorsement of their truth. The page’s automatically generated summaries and topic labels are not used as evidence.