Listen to the article
Michigan Senate Candidate Under Fire for Comments on Terrorism Understanding
A Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan has sparked controversy after suggesting the United States should try to understand the motivations behind terrorist acts, describing them as stemming from “pain and frustration and a level of lack of agency.”
Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and former Wayne County health director, made these remarks during a town hall in South Haven, Michigan in July 2025. When asked about how he would address terrorism if elected, El-Sayed acknowledged that the United States’ current military approach was “necessary” but emphasized the importance of understanding underlying causes.
“I also think we need to be curious about why those things happen in the first place,” El-Sayed said, according to video footage obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “I have to be a student of people’s pain. Like, that’s what I did in medicine. That’s what I try to do in politics.”
The comments have drawn significant criticism from political opponents who view the statements as downplaying terrorist actions. El-Sayed is running for Michigan’s open Senate seat in the 2026 midterms on a progressive platform that includes Medicare for All and free education.
During the town hall, El-Sayed characterized terrorism as political violence committed in “pursuit of a political end” and suggested that terrorists must feel a “level of pain and frustration and a level of lack of agency” to “do something so insane and absurd.”
The Senate hopeful also criticized American foreign policy, arguing that the United States often breaks the rules of the “rules-based international order” it claims to uphold, creating a situation where “there are a lot of people who look at us and say, that’s hypocritical, and that’s wrong.” He pledged to bring “empathy” to discussions about terrorism if elected.
Michigan represents a crucial battleground state in American politics, and the 2026 Senate race is expected to be highly competitive. El-Sayed faces significant Democratic primary competition from Representative Hayley Stevens and state Senator Mallory McMarrow before potentially facing Republican candidate Mike Rogers in the general election.
El-Sayed’s candidacy has already attracted attention for his positions on Middle East policy. The son of Egyptian immigrants, he has been highly critical of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians. His campaign has further courted controversy through associations with internet personality Hasan Parker, who reportedly expressed support for Hamas over Israel.
Political analysts suggest El-Sayed’s comments reflect a broader debate within the Democratic Party about approaches to foreign policy and national security. Progressive candidates have increasingly questioned traditional U.S. military interventions abroad, while more moderate Democrats warn that such positions could alienate swing voters in critical states like Michigan.
The controversy comes at a time when national security issues have regained prominence in American political discourse, with ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and evolving global threats continuing to shape voter concerns.
Neither El-Sayed’s campaign nor Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers had responded to requests for comment at the time of publication. As the primary campaign intensifies, El-Sayed’s remarks are likely to face continued scrutiny from both political opponents and voters concerned about national security issues.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
I’m curious to hear more about the specific policy proposals this candidate has to address terrorism. Understanding root causes is important, but we also need effective strategies to prevent and respond to attacks. I hope the details get fleshed out further.
Interesting perspective, but I’m not sure I agree that we should try to ‘understand’ the motivations of terrorists. While it’s important to address root causes, the bottom line is that terrorism is unacceptable and we can’t justify or excuse it.
I appreciate the desire to understand, but you’re right that we can’t excuse or downplay terrorist acts. Addressing the underlying issues without justifying the violence is a delicate balance.
As someone who works in the mining/energy sector, I’m interested to see how this candidate’s views on terrorism might intersect with issues like critical infrastructure protection, resource security, and geopolitical stability. Those are key concerns for our industry.
As someone with a background in mining and energy, I’m curious to hear more about how this candidate’s views on terrorism might impact policies around critical infrastructure protection, supply chain security, and geopolitical risk mitigation. Those are key concerns for our industry.
This is a politically charged issue, so I appreciate the candidate trying to take a more nuanced approach. But I worry the language of ‘pain and frustration’ could be misinterpreted. We need to be very careful in how we discuss the motivations behind terrorism.
Agreed, the framing is important. While understanding root causes is valuable, we can’t lose sight of the fact that terrorism inflicts immense suffering and has to be condemned unequivocally.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. I can see the value in trying to understand the ‘pain and frustration’ that may drive some to terrorism, but I worry that framing it that way could be seen as making excuses. We have to be very careful in how we approach this.
Agreed, it’s a nuanced topic that requires a balanced approach. Empathy and understanding are important, but can’t come at the expense of condemning the violence and upholding the rule of law.
I’m a bit skeptical of this line of thinking. While I agree we should try to address the societal factors that may contribute to radicalization, we can’t ignore the fact that terrorism is a serious crime with devastating consequences. Empathy shouldn’t come at the expense of justice and security.