Josh Gottheimer
Role at the time: U.S. Representative for New Jersey's 5th congressional district, posting on social media
Statement summary
Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey condemned Piker's comparison on social media, saying it was not an accident but the product of what he called a brand built on anti-American hate. He cited Piker's 2019 remark that America deserved the September 11 attacks, a backdrop Gottheimer said featured a newspaper showing the Twin Towers, and what he described as years of excusing terrorists who targeted the United States. Gottheimer's characterisations of Piker's record and motives are his own.
“Comparing America to al-Qaeda wasn't an accident — Piker has built a brand on anti-American hate. This is a man who said America 'deserved' 9/11, who framed a newspaper with the Twin Towers on it for his backdrop, and who has spent years excusing the very terrorists who've targeted our country. That's not edgy commentary.”
The Hill's report of September 17, 2026, 1:44 PM ET, on backlash to Piker's Axios remarks from both Republicans and Democrats. It carries the fullest set of verbatim reactions found: Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) on social media; the official Republicans account calling on every Democrat supported by Piker to condemn him; and political strategist and "The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin saying Piker is "an absolute soundbite machine for Republican ads." It also reproduces Piker's own follow-up posts, including a second post beyond the one already recorded in this case, about elites terrorising the world while ordinary Americans foot the bill. The report notes the Pentagon has not taken responsibility for the Minab strike.
Why we used this label
Gottheimer rejects it outright and attributes it to a pattern rather than a slip, which is a direct condemnation of the claim and its author. He is the second Democrat recorded here to reject the comparison, after El-Sayed (956), and sits alongside Lara Trump (966) and Rogers (968). The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, on the basis that he disputes the framing of the remark as "edgy commentary"; it loses because that phrase rejects a defence of the claim rather than merely contesting a label, and the passage condemns the underlying comparison throughout.