Public disputes concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, their aftermath, memorials, official records, and effects on survivors and responders.
Published coverage on this page: 4+ cases · 24+ statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
Hasan Piker told Axios the US has caused more terrorism than al-Qaeda "pound for pound." The full episode added more contested claims -- on Iran's nuclear programme, Mao Zedong, China and Zionism -- and drew condemnation from both parties.
Published
Read the case
Published
Published
Published
Labels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
113 matching statements
Role at the time: Sponsor of the Family Values political ad
Statement summary
An unnamed Front Line Action spokesperson defended the ad as grounded in El-Sayed's public statements, documented reporting and records concerning him, campaign associates and campaign supporters.
“The substance of the ad is grounded in El-Sayed’s own public statements”
What this label refers to
The sponsor defends the challenged ad's basis; it does not concede that its portrayal was improper.
Role at the time: Spokesman for Abdul El-Sayed campaign
Statement summary
Wozniak said Republicans were resorting to AI-generated ads containing falsehoods and bad-faith attacks. He spoke for El-Sayed's campaign.
“filled with falsehoods and bad faith attacks”
What this label refers to
Wozniak condemns the ad's portrayal rather than endorsing it.
Role at the time: Former mayor of New York City
Statement summary
In a New York Post interview, Rudy Giuliani denied hiding air-quality information after September 11, saying his administration followed EPA guidance and "posted everything."
“My administration posted everything.”
What this label refers to
The case concerns the Mamdani administration's release of post-September 11 air-quality and health records. Giuliani directly rejects the contention that his administration withheld the information.
Role at the time: Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan
Response to this claim
Abdul El-Sayed believes the United States deserved the September 11 attacks.
Quotation excerpt
“It’s a dumb comment. He himself has called it a dumb comment. And they keep bringing it up because all they can talk about is the comment of a guy who has zero power aside from his stream, rather than talk about the guy who has a lot of…”
“It’s a dumb comment. He himself has called it a dumb comment. And they keep bringing it up because all they can talk about is the comment of a guy who has zero power aside from his stream, rather than talk about the guy who has a lot of power to make dumb wars that we’re paying for.”
On the central allegation that El-Sayed’s association with Piker supports an adverse inference about El-Sayed’s belief, El-Sayed rejects the use of the remark as a campaign talking point while expressly criticizing the remark itself. This challenges the Piker-linked characterization of El-Sayed; it does not defend Piker’s comment or establish a new Piker statement.
Role at the time: Associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan who studies political discrimination against minority communities, quoted by The Washington Post
Response to this claim
The Front Line Action’s “Family Values” ad uses terrorism-related imagery and language that plays on anti-Muslim stereotypes about Abdul El-Sayed.
“goes beyond dog whistle politics”
Relative to the claim that the ad uses terrorism-related imagery and language that plays on anti-Muslim stereotypes about El-Sayed, Lajevardi agrees and goes further: she says the ad “goes beyond dog whistle politics” and taps into “a narrative that all Muslims are to blame for making Americans unsafe”. She criticizes the ad on that ground. The closest competing label is “Mixed or conditional”; it loses because she states her assessment without qualification.
Role at the time: President of the United States, answering a reporter’s question in the Oval Office
Statement summary
Asked in the Oval Office about the condemnations of Piker by leading Democrats and whether he considered Piker a liability to the party, Trump said he did, called him a communist, and said Piker’s statements were “so bad” that he could not understand Jewish voters supporting Democrats.
“I do. I think he’s a terrible liability. I think he’s got a power over some of these Democrats and he will vote that way. He’s a communist. There’s no question about it.”
What this label refers to
On Piker’s claims in the Axios Show interview, Trump condemns him, and does so in answer to a question expressly premised on the condemnations those claims produced. He goes on to say “his statements are so bad” before drawing a conclusion about Jewish voters, which is an evaluation of the statements rather than only of the speaker. The limitation should be read with it: Trump does not address the al-Qaeda comparison, the Iran answer or the China remarks by name, and the bulk of his reply concerns Piker’s influence within the Democratic Party rather than the truth of anything he said. It is recorded as a condemnation of the speaker and his statements in this dispute, not as a response to any particular claim.
Role at the time: Former mayor of Chicago and former U.S. ambassador to Japan
Statement summary
Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Hasan Piker's "pound for pound" comment was "a ridiculous statement on a normal day, but particularly vile" in the week of the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. He said on X that everyone is free to express opinions "however dumb or immoral," and that the rest of us are free to call out "this vile, hateful speech that only divides America."
Quotation excerpt
“a ridiculous statement on a normal day, but particularly vile the same week we’re reflecting on the loss of 3,000 Americans on the 25th anniversary of 9/11. The great thing about America is that everyone is entitled to their opinions and…”
“a ridiculous statement on a normal day, but particularly vile the same week we’re reflecting on the loss of 3,000 Americans on the 25th anniversary of 9/11. The great thing about America is that everyone is entitled to their opinions and free to express them, however dumb or immoral, That includes ‘Comrade’ Piker. The rest of us are just as free — obligated even — to call out this vile, hateful speech that only divides America.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Piker's claims in the Axios interview, including that the United States commits more terrorism than al-Qaida "pound for pound." Emanuel calls that comment "a ridiculous statement" that was "particularly vile" in the week of the 9/11 anniversary, and says others are free to call out Piker's "vile, hateful speech." That rejects the claim outright, so we labeled it Condemned.
Role at the time: Political commentator and streamer, interviewed on Lovett or Leave It
Statement summary
Piker accepted Lovett’s criticism of his framing, agreeing there was truth in it and that he had at times become a problem for candidates such as Abdul El-Sayed, while maintaining that the difficulty lay in his becoming a distraction rather than in the substance of what he had said.
Quotation excerpt
“No, I think you’re — I think there’s truth to what you’re saying. Absolutely. … And clearly that’s, there are times in which you’ve become a problem for people like Abdul. And the problem isn’t necessarily what I’m saying. The problem is…”
“No, I think you’re — I think there’s truth to what you’re saying. Absolutely. … And clearly that’s, there are times in which you’ve become a problem for people like Abdul. And the problem isn’t necessarily what I’m saying. The problem is that I become a distraction, because you have a finite amount of time where you are supposed to make your case to the people.”
What this label refers to
On Piker continues to defend the substance of his claims while conceding their tactical cost, which is the same structure as his earlier statement that he regretted the phrase “pound for pound” while maintaining the claim was truthful. The concession here goes further than that one: he accepts that the criticism of his framing has truth in it and that he has become a problem for candidates. It is still not a withdrawal, because he expressly locates the problem in his being a distraction rather than in what he said.
_%40_SXSW_2017.jpg){kind=small}
Role at the time: Podcast host, interviewing Piker on Lovett or Leave It
Statement summary
Interviewing Piker, Jon Lovett said he understood and accepted the substance of the argument behind the al-Qaeda comparison, while questioning whether framing it so antagonistically served Piker’s own purpose now that he has a larger platform.
Quotation excerpt
“And then you look into what you’re saying, I understand the point that you’re making. And there is a space between acting like a candidate and not saying what you think and a kind of obtuseness about what happens when you say something like…”
“And then you look into what you’re saying, I understand the point that you’re making. And there is a space between acting like a candidate and not saying what you think and a kind of obtuseness about what happens when you say something like that. … But as you have a bigger platform now, do you think to yourself, you know what, the most helpful and persuasive way for me to make this argument to the people that will hear it is not to be so antagonistic in the framing, or am I just too kind of poisoned by sort of campaigns and politics?”
What this label refers to
On whether Piker’s claims are defensible analysis or indefensible positions, Lovett holds both at once. He expressly grants the substance, saying he understands the point and the argument being made, and simultaneously criticises the framing as obtuse about its consequences. He also turns the criticism on himself, asking whether he is “too poisoned by campaigns and politics,” which qualifies rather than withdraws the objection. “Condemned” loses because he accepts the underlying argument; “Defended or excused” loses because he plainly objects to how it was put.
Role at the time: Host, The Humanist Report
Statement summary
Mike Figueredo defended Piker, noting that the Axios interviewer rather than Piker introduced the al-Qaeda comparison, and argued the interview was designed to generate outrage that could be used against Abdul El-Sayed.
Quotation excerpt
“If you'll recall, Hasan didn't even bring up al-Qaeda on his own volition. It was the interviewer who chose to invoke al-Qaeda. ... The goal was to farm outrage off of him specifically to tee up attacks against Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim…”
“If you'll recall, Hasan didn't even bring up al-Qaeda on his own volition. It was the interviewer who chose to invoke al-Qaeda. ... The goal was to farm outrage off of him specifically to tee up attacks against Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate that the Republican Party wants you to believe is a terrorist sympathizer.”
What this label refers to
Relative to the claim at issue -- that America commits more terrorism than al-Qaeda -- Figueredo defends it, saying critics "refuse to grapple with the substance" because the idea that America "statistically speaking, commits more acts of terrorism than Al Qaeda is too much for these people to bear." He also challenges the framing by noting the interviewer introduced the comparison.
Role at the time: Streamer and political commentator
Statement summary
In a response video, Piker said it would have been better not to do the Axios interview and better not to have used the phrase "pound for pound," while maintaining that the underlying analysis was true and that he is too stubborn to avoid saying it.
Quotation excerpt
“[It] would have been probably better if I just didn't do the interview at all. Having said that, it certainly would have been better if I didn't say pound for pound. ... Perhaps someone with a name like Hasan, who is being aggressively…”
“[It] would have been probably better if I just didn't do the interview at all. Having said that, it certainly would have been better if I didn't say pound for pound. ... Perhaps someone with a name like Hasan, who is being aggressively slammed into the campaign of a guy who's named Abdul, should not be saying those things. Regardless, I'm too hardheaded and too stubborn to a fault, especially when it comes to analysis and perspective.”
What this label refers to
Relative to the claim at issue -- that America commits more terrorism than al-Qaeda -- Piker continues to defend it, saying elsewhere in the same video that the quote is "truthful, but it doesn't matter because being truthful is utterly irrelevant." His regret is confined to the wording ("pound for pound") and to the tactical decision to give the interview while tied to a Senate campaign; he does not withdraw the underlying comparison. This is recorded as a partial regret about expression, not a retraction.
Role at the time: U.S. Representative (D-NY)
Statement summary
Ritchie Torres criticised Piker for condemning America while declining to criticise Mao Zedong, saying Piker has a rule against criticising him.
“Piker condemns America while refusing to condemn one of the 20th century's deadliest dictators, instead lionizing Mao as one of the world's 'great leaders.'”
What this label refers to
Piker's assertion that America commits more terrorism than al-Qaeda, Torres rejects it by attacking its consistency, arguing Piker applies condemnation to the United States but not to Mao. He disputes the standard behind the comparison rather than the death-toll arithmetic.
Role at the time: Regional Press Secretary Samantha Cantrell, National Republican Senatorial Committee
Statement summary
The NRSC issued a press release reproducing Piker's Axios exchange and, through regional press secretary Samantha Cantrell, demanded that Abdul El-Sayed disavow him.
“Only someone as radical as Abdul El-Sayed would spend the last two months refusing to disavow a supporter who said 'America deserved 9/11' and that America is worse than the terrorists who killed thousands of Americans that day.”
What this label refers to
Relative to the claim at issue, the NRSC rejects Piker's comparison, characterising it as saying America is worse than the 9/11 attackers, and addresses the candidate-association prong by demanding El-Sayed disavow him.
Role at the time: Host of The Bulwark Daily, in a scripted and interview programme
Statement summary
On The Bulwark Daily, host Tim Miller said he had been criticising moderate Democrats for making Hasan Piker a bigger issue than he should be, and maintained that position: Piker holds what Miller called some bad views but was absolutely right about American policy on the wars in the Middle East, which Miller called the salient issue of the midterm, and Democrats should be reaching out to anti-war voters rather than scaring them away. He then said Piker's decision to give the Axios interview, and to answer yes when asked whether the United States is worse than al-Qaeda, was self-defeating, telling him to stop making himself the central issue of the Michigan race and asking who benefits from the interview. Guest Jesse Lehrich replied that he had no idea what Piker gets out of it.
Quotation excerpt
“Everybody knows that I have been kind of dragging the moderates for making the Hassan Piker thing a bigger deal than it should be. And it's like, Hassan Piker has some bad views, but also he was absolutely right about what the U.S. should…”
“Everybody knows that I have been kind of dragging the moderates for making the Hassan Piker thing a bigger deal than it should be. And it's like, Hassan Piker has some bad views, but also he was absolutely right about what the U.S. should be doing with regards to the wars in the Middle East, and that is the salient issue of the midterm, and Democrats should be trying to reach out to anti-war voters and not scare them away. And so I still feel that way. But then Hassan has decided to do an interview with Axios for some reason … and he's getting asked about whether the U.S. is worse than al-Qaeda and he's like yes, and I'm going, bro, please … stop making yourself the central issue of the Michigan race. Like you can still live stream, do your thing. But who is benefiting from you talking to Axios?”
What this label refers to
Miller combines materially different responses to it. He restates a defence of Piker's broader position on the Middle East wars, calling him absolutely right on that and warning Democrats against alienating anti-war voters, while treating this particular answer as a political error that makes Piker the story. He neither endorses the comparison nor rejects it on the merits. That is the same shape as Philip DeFranco (982), also classified “Mixed or conditional”. The closest competing label is condemns; it loses because his criticism is of the decision to give the interview rather than of the claim, and it sits alongside an explicit defence of Piker's underlying foreign-policy view.
Role at the time: Twitch streamer and political commentator, interviewed for "The Axios Show"
Statement summary
In a further excerpt from the same Axios interview, given first to CNN, Alex Thompson asked Piker whether Iran should be free to build a nuclear weapon. Piker said Iran has a right to defend itself like any sovereign nation and, citing political scientist John Mearsheimer, argued that in an age of proliferation only nuclear-armed states can generate true sovereignty, applying the same reasoning to Ukraine. Asked directly whether the Middle East would be more stable if Iran had a nuclear weapon, he answered that he believes it would. He twice qualified the answer, saying he does not want Iran, the United States, Russia or China to hold nuclear arms and that he was not advocating Iranian armament, and added that he regards the nuclear conversation as a distraction that Tehran uses as leverage for sanctions relief. His deterrence reasoning and his characterisation of Iranian conduct are his own.
Quotation excerpt
“I think Iran, much like any other sovereign nation, has a right to defend itself, regardless of its domestic policies. … countries that would have nuclear arms in an age of nuclear proliferation are the only countries that can generate true…”
“I think Iran, much like any other sovereign nation, has a right to defend itself, regardless of its domestic policies. … countries that would have nuclear arms in an age of nuclear proliferation are the only countries that can generate true sovereignty. Now, having said that, do I want Iran to have nuclear arms? No. But I also don't want America or Russia or China to have nuclear arms either. … Do you think the Middle East would be more stable if Iran had a nuclear weapon? I believe yes. I think that the Middle East would be more stable. Having said that, once again, I'm not advocating.”
What this label refers to
As the author of the claim, Piker asserts and defends it: asked directly, he answers that he believes it, and supplies a deterrence rationale attributed to Mearsheimer. The closest competing label is “Mixed or conditional”, given his repeated qualifiers that he does not want any state to hold nuclear arms and is "not advocating"; it loses because those qualifiers address what he would prefer and what he is urging, not whether the stability claim is true, and he does not withdraw or condition the claim itself. Note that the widely circulated headline carries only the stability answer without the qualifiers.
Role at the time: CNN chief political correspondent and anchor of "Inside Politics"
Statement summary
Introducing the segment on CNN's "Inside Politics," host Dana Bash called Piker's remark stunning even by his standards and said he had effectively written the next Republican attack ad, adding that Democrats were hoping he would stay quiet and that he was giving Republicans in Michigan a lot to work with. After playing the Axios clip, she noted El-Sayed's statement distancing himself and drew a distinction of her own, saying he is running in a democracy to join a democratically elected government as opposed to al-Qaeda, which she called an actual terrorist organization. She then turned to Semafor's Dave Weigel, who discussed the political risk to El-Sayed rather than the accuracy of the comparison.
Quotation excerpt
“Far left streamer Hasan Piker just said something so stunning, even by his standards. Did he just write the Republicans' next attack ad for them? That's a rhetorical question. … A lot of Democrats are hoping far-left streamer Hasan Piker…”
“Far left streamer Hasan Piker just said something so stunning, even by his standards. Did he just write the Republicans' next attack ad for them? That's a rhetorical question. … A lot of Democrats are hoping far-left streamer Hasan Piker will just stay quiet. Much to the delight of Republicans, he's not, and he's giving those Republicans, especially in Michigan, a lot to work with. … I should just say that El-Sayed's campaign did put out a statement saying that he doesn't agree with his sentiment on al-Qaeda, probably because he's running in a democracy to be part of a democratically elected government, other than as opposed to al-Qaeda, which is an actual terrorist organization.”
What this label refers to
Bash rejects it on the substance, not only on its politics: her aside that El-Sayed is running in a democracy "as opposed to al-Qaeda, which is an actual terrorist organization" draws the category distinction the comparison collapses, and she frames the remark as stunning even by Piker's standards. That places her with the other speakers who reject the comparison. The closest competing label is “Mixed or conditional”, since much of her framing concerns the electoral damage to Democrats rather than the merits; it loses because she does not balance that against any concession to the claim, and the democracy-versus-terrorist-organization line is a substantive evaluation rather than a comment on effect.
Role at the time: Host of The Philip DeFranco Show, in a scripted news segment
Statement summary
Covering the controversy on his September 17 show, Philip DeFranco reported reactions from across the political spectrum and then answered three questions in his own voice, questions he attributed to other commentators. He agreed that Axios had taken the quote out of context, agreed that even in context the comment is out of touch with where most Americans stand, and agreed that it is an unnecessary distraction at best and actively damaging at worst to Democratic candidates 47 days from the midterms. He did not address whether the underlying comparison is accurate. Elsewhere in the segment he noted that the backlash had fallen on Axios as well as Piker.
Quotation excerpt
“And others adding, was the quote taken out of context? Yes. Even with context, is this deeply out of touch with where most Americans stand? Yes. Is this an unnecessary distraction at best and actively damaging at worst [to] Democratic…”
“And others adding, was the quote taken out of context? Yes. Even with context, is this deeply out of touch with where most Americans stand? Yes. Is this an unnecessary distraction at best and actively damaging at worst [to] Democratic candidates' chances 47 days out from the midterms? Also, yes.”
What this label refers to
DeFranco combines materially different positions on it. He sides with Piker against Axios on the framing, agreeing the quote was clipped out of context, while judging the remark itself out of touch with public opinion and damaging to the candidates Piker supports. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, on the strength of the out-of-context answer; it loses because he does not stop there but adds a substantive negative evaluation. condemns also loses, because he never rejects the comparison on the merits and expressly criticises how it was presented. Note that he assesses the remark's political standing and effect rather than its accuracy.
Role at the time: Twitch streamer and political commentator, posting on his verified X account
Statement summary
In further posts the same day, beyond the one accusing Axios of clickbaiting his answer, Piker expanded the argument behind his comparison. He said American elites terrorise the world while ordinary Americans pay for it, that trillions were spent fighting terror the United States had itself created in order to cover resource extraction, and that the result was death abroad and poverty at home alongside a growing military-industrial complex. The Washington Examiner reported he also wrote that Trump and the Republican Party are "Epstein-class terrorists" and cited strikes on fishermen off South America, arms to Israel and sanctions on Cuba. These are his characterisations and are not established here.
Quotation excerpt
“our elites terrorize the entire world while ordinary americans continue to foot the bill. we spent trillions 'fighting' the terror we created to provide cover for our oil barons stealing 3rd world resources … it only amounted to more death…”
“our elites terrorize the entire world while ordinary americans continue to foot the bill. we spent trillions 'fighting' the terror we created to provide cover for our oil barons stealing 3rd world resources … it only amounted to more death overseas, more poverty at home. all while the MIC ballooned. no houses, no hospitals, no schools-just a growing crisis of homelessness, underemployment and diseases of despair in the wealthiest country on earth”
What this label refers to
Here he neither withdraws nor qualifies it but supplies the underlying argument, framing U.S. conduct as elite-driven terror paid for by ordinary Americans. That is a continued defence of the claim under scrutiny, consistent with his interview answer (955) and his response to the Axios framing (967), and it is recorded separately because it is a distinct statement making a distinct argument rather than a restatement. The closest competing label is “Mixed or conditional”; it loses because he attaches no condition and combines no opposing position.
Role at the time: Official social-media account of the Republican Party, as identified by The Hill
Statement summary
The official Republicans social media account posted the clip of Piker's Axios remarks and called on every Democrat supported by him to condemn him immediately, describing him in derogatory terms. The Hill, which reported the post, identifies it only as the official Republicans account and does not name the handle; the specific account could not be verified independently, so the attribution rests on that report.
“Every single Democrat who is supported by this garbage can of a human being must condemn him immediately.”
What this label refers to
The post circulates the clip as self-evidently disqualifying and demands that Democrats disavow its author, which is an express rejection of the claim and a condemnation of the speaker. It sits with Rogers (968), who makes the same demand of El-Sayed specifically. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”; it loses because the post disputes no label or description but treats the remark itself as indefensible.
Role at the time: Political strategist, co-host of ABC's "The View" and former White House communications director, posting on social media
Statement summary
Political strategist and "The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin criticised Piker's remarks on social media, saying she could be convinced he was a Republican operative and calling him an absolute soundbite machine for Republican ads. The remark treats the comparison as indefensible enough to serve Republican campaign advertising rather than engaging with whether it is accurate. The suggestion that Piker is a Republican operative is rhetorical and is not an allegation this case records as fact.
“You could convince me Hasan Piker is a GOP op. He's an absolute soundbite machine for Republican ads!”
What this label refers to
Griffin criticises the claim and its author, treating the remark as self-evidently damaging rather than arguable. That is a critical evaluation of the conduct under scrutiny, and the guidance is explicit that a speaker need not use the verb "condemn" for the label to apply. It matches how her mockery of Kash Patel's hearing testimony is classified in its own case (900). The closest competing label is “Mixed or conditional”; it loses because she combines no materially different positions and attaches no express condition. Her focus on political consequence rather than on the merits does not soften the evaluation, since the stated target is Piker's remarks themselves.
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.
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Broadcaster and founder of Zeteo, co-writing a signed analysis piece with Andrew Perez
Statement summary
In a signed analysis piece for Zeteo co-written with Andrew Perez, Mehdi Hasan defended Piker's comparison as accurate on the specific measure Piker used, the number of deaths. The authors cited Brown University's Costs of War estimate of 432,000 civilians killed by direct post-9/11 war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan between 2001 and 2023, along with Vietnam, Laos and Indonesia, and argued that al-Qaeda's death toll bears no comparison. They said Axios's headline was calibrated to maximise outrage while crediting the outlet for interviewing Piker, and drew a parallel to Trump's 2017 remark to Bill O'Reilly that "we've got a lot of killers" and "do you think our country's so innocent?" They also characterised the wider response as a cancellation campaign. The casualty estimates are as the authors cite them and their characterisations of other actors are their own.
Quotation excerpt
“Piker's comment, while obviously controversial, is objectively true. … Terror attacks by al-Qaeda have killed thousands of innocent people over the past three decades, but in terms of "the number of deaths" there is no real comparison to be…”
“Piker's comment, while obviously controversial, is objectively true. … Terror attacks by al-Qaeda have killed thousands of innocent people over the past three decades, but in terms of "the number of deaths" there is no real comparison to be made. … Yes, Trump lies all the time, but his point there was correct. So was Piker's.”
What this label refers to
Hasan and Perez endorse it directly, calling it "objectively true" on the death-toll measure Piker specified and concluding "So was Piker's." That places them with Piker (955, 967) and opposite El-Sayed (956), Lara Trump (966) and Rogers (968). The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, since much of the piece attacks Axios's headline and the wider coverage; it loses because the authors go on to affirm the underlying claim on the merits rather than only disputing how it was framed.
Role at the time: U.S. Representative for Michigan's 6th congressional district, interviewed on CNN
Statement summary
Asked on CNN whether Abdul El-Sayed needed to do more to distance himself from Hasan Piker after the Axios interview, Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell said she was sick of talking about Piker and wanted him to go away, and questioned why he gave the interview. She agreed with part of what he said, calling the bombing of the school in Iran horrific and saying the United States should not be in the war in Iran, while distancing herself from his other positions: she said Israel has a right to exist and called things he has said about women horrific. She said the election is about El-Sayed rather than Piker, urged Piker to stop going on television if he wants El-Sayed elected, and said El-Sayed must make clear he does not agree with what Piker has said.
Quotation excerpt
“I'm so sick of talking about Hasan Piker and I want Hasan Piker to go away. I don't know why he had to do that interview. … The bombing of the school in Iran was horrific. We shouldn't be in the war in Iran. … This election is about Abdul…”
“I'm so sick of talking about Hasan Piker and I want Hasan Piker to go away. I don't know why he had to do that interview. … The bombing of the school in Iran was horrific. We shouldn't be in the war in Iran. … This election is about Abdul El-Sayed, not Hasan Piker. … If he wants to see Abdul El-Sayed elected, stop going on television. Abdul has got to make it clear that he does not agree with the things that he has said.”
What this label refers to
Dingell combines materially different responses to it. She endorses part of the basis he gave — that the Iran school strike was horrific and that the United States should not be in that war — while declining to accept the comparison itself and rejecting his positions on Israel and on women, and she presses El-Sayed to disavow him. The closest competing label is “Explicitly stayed out”, given her repeated wish that everyone stop talking about Piker; it loses because she engages with the substance before redirecting, and the guidance is to evaluate the answer given rather than the closing redirect. condemns also loses, because she never rejects the comparison on the merits.
Role at the time: Republican nominee for United States Senate in Michigan, posting from his campaign account
Statement summary
Within hours of the interview, Rogers posted that Piker had said America is worse than al-Qaeda, described Piker as El-Sayed's running mate, and demanded that El-Sayed condemn him. El-Sayed had already rejected the comparison in a statement to Axios.
“BREAKING: Conman @AbdulElSayed’s running mate Hasan Piker just said that America is worse than Al-Qaeda. Abdul — enough is enough. Condemn Piker once and for all.”
What this label refers to
Rogers treats the claim as self-evidently disqualifying and demands it be condemned, which is a rejection of the claim rather than a dispute about how it has been described. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, which loses because he does not argue Piker has been misquoted or misread; he takes the comparison at face value and rejects it. His description of Piker as El-Sayed's running mate is campaign framing rather than a factual claim about any formal role.
Cole Wozniak is a political communications professional and spokesperson for Abdul El-Sayed's 2026 U.S. Senate campaign in Michigan. He represents the campaign in public statements and responses to journalists.
2 cases and 2 statements
American lawyer and politician who served as mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001.
2 cases and 4 statements
Abdul El-Sayed is a physician, former Detroit health director, and 2026 Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan.
3 cases and 12 statements
Nazita Lajevardi is an associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan. Her research examines public opinion and political behavior through the lenses of race and religion, with a focus on political discrimination against marginalized communities.
1 case and 1 statement
Donald Trump is the 45th and 47th president of the United States. Before entering national politics, he worked in real estate development and entertainment.
2 cases and 2 statements
Rahm Emanuel is a Democratic politician and diplomat from Illinois. He represented Illinois's 5th congressional district in the U.S. House from 2003 to 2009, served as White House chief of staff under President Barack Obama, was mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019, and served as U.S. ambassador to Japan from 2022 to 2025.
1 case and 1 statement
Founder and host of "The Humanist Report," a progressive political commentary podcast and YouTube show.
1 case and 1 statement
Ritchie Torres is the U.S. representative for New York's 15th Congressional District, which covers the South Bronx and other parts of the Bronx. A Democrat, he was first elected to Congress in 2020 and previously served on the New York City Council.
1 case and 1 statement
Podcaster, comedian, former White House speechwriter, and co-founder of Crooked Media.
1 case and 1 statement
Hasan Piker, also known as HasanAbi, is a political commentator and livestream host. He broadcasts on Twitch and publishes videos on YouTube, discussing current events and politics. Piker previously made programs for The Young Turks, including Agitprop with Hasan Piker and The Breakdown. He graduated from Rutgers University with degrees in political science and communications.
3 cases and 6 statements
American journalist, CNN chief political correspondent and anchor of "Inside Politics." She has co-moderated presidential and vice-presidential debates for the network.
1 case and 1 statement
American television host and former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. She hosts "My View with Lara Trump" on Fox News and is married to Eric Trump, a son of President Donald Trump.
1 case and 1 statement
