Listen to the article
Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who has garnered endorsements from progressive figures like Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Sen. Bernie Sanders, has quietly removed multiple social media posts supporting the “defund the police” movement from his online profiles, according to a CNN investigation.
The deleted posts, made between 2020 and 2021 following George Floyd’s death, reveal El-Sayed’s previous stance on law enforcement funding. In a June 2020 post on Twitter (now X), El-Sayed wrote: “Most major US cities spend WAY TOO MUCH on police departments to police poverty & WAY TOO LITTLE on public schools, health departments, recreation departments, & housing to eliminate poverty. Fixing that is what the #Defund movement is about.”
Another removed post stated: “The police have become standing armies we deploy against our own people.”
In a YouTube interview for Michigan Online from the same period, El-Sayed elaborated on his position, saying, “When we make a choice to invest in policing in a majority black community, rather than to invest in public schools, that choice is influenced by systemic racism.” He continued, “When we talk about the question of quote-unquote defunding the police, it’s a question of asking how do we right-size government away from the racist ideologies that have led us to investing in war material for policing rather than public health for children.”
El-Sayed, who previously served as Detroit’s health department executive director, is competing in a crowded Democratic primary that includes state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens. The winner will likely face former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost his bid for the seat in 2024.
When approached for comment, El-Sayed’s campaign provided a statement highlighting his work with law enforcement during his tenure as Wayne County’s Health Officer, where he declared a public health emergency at the Juvenile Detention Facility. The campaign claimed El-Sayed worked “alongside law enforcement to fully rebuild it from the studs, raising officers’ wages by 35% and funding a safer, more humane system.”
The campaign statement also emphasized that “rather than defund Police, Dr. El-Sayed is challenging government choices that defund food, healthcare, and social services while militarizing agencies like ICE in sharp contrast to Donald Trump’s presidency because real safety comes from investing in people—not in tanks and tear gas.”
El-Sayed’s situation parallels that of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, another progressive who faced significant backlash for past anti-police comments. Mamdani, a self-described socialist, was forced to publicly apologize on Fox News for calling the NYPD “racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety” and supporting defunding efforts.
El-Sayed has embraced the comparison to Mamdani, reportedly stating in a now-deleted campaign advertisement, “Like Zohran, I’m running a people-powered campaign because I know we deserve better.” After Mamdani’s election victory, El-Sayed reportedly declared in a July campaign ad: “Zohran won. Abdul is next. His win is proof that bold, progressive politics are what Americans want.”
The “defund the police” movement became a contentious issue for Democrats following the 2020 protests after George Floyd’s murder. Many candidates who previously supported the movement have since distanced themselves from such rhetoric as polling has consistently shown it to be unpopular with most voters.
Mamdani’s anti-police stance may have already impacted the NYPD, with the department reportedly seeing a 35% increase in officers leaving in October, according to New York Police Pension Fund data analyzed by the New York Post. Some police departments, including Houston’s, have actively recruited dissatisfied NYPD officers, with the Houston Police Officers Union president Douglas Griffith stating they believe “socialism is going to be bad for law enforcement in New York City.”
The Michigan Senate race remains closely watched as Democrats seek to maintain their slim Senate majority, with primaries set for next year.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
Removing past social media posts can be seen as an attempt to distance oneself from previous positions. However, it’s important for voters to have a clear understanding of the candidate’s views and how they have changed over time.
I agree. Transparency around policy positions is crucial, even if they have evolved. Voters deserve to know where the candidate stands on important issues like policing and public spending.
The ‘defund the police’ movement has been a divisive and complex topic. It will be interesting to see how the candidate addresses this issue and reconciles their previous statements with their current platform.
Absolutely. The candidate will need to clearly articulate their position on this issue and explain how they plan to balance public safety with addressing systemic inequities, if elected.
Interesting to see the scrutiny around this candidate’s past social media posts. I’m curious to understand more about the context and evolution of their views on policing and public spending priorities. Reasonable people can disagree on these complex issues.
Yes, the deleted posts do raise questions about the candidate’s previous stance. It will be important to hear their current perspective and how they plan to address these concerns if elected.
This situation underscores the challenges politicians face in the digital age, where their past statements and social media activity can come back to haunt them. Voters will want to see the candidate address this issue directly.
Absolutely. The candidate’s ability to navigate this situation and communicate their current position effectively will be an important factor in how voters perceive them.
The deleted posts seem to indicate a shift in the candidate’s stance on policing and public spending priorities. It will be interesting to see how they reconcile this with their current platform and endorsements.
Yes, the candidate will need to provide a clear and compelling explanation for the apparent change in their position. Voters will want to understand the reasoning behind it.
The removal of these posts raises questions about the candidate’s commitment to transparency and accountability. Voters will likely want to see a clear explanation for the changes in their position.
Yes, it’s important for the candidate to address this issue head-on and provide a coherent explanation for the shift in their stance, if any.
This situation highlights the challenges politicians face in navigating sensitive social and political issues. Voters will want to see consistency and authenticity in the candidate’s messaging and policy positions.
That’s a good point. Voters often value candidates who are willing to acknowledge past mistakes or evolutions in their thinking, rather than simply trying to erase the record.