Memorial Post Sparks Misattributed Quote Backlash

A solemn 9/11 tribute by Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed triggered a fierce backlash that fact-checkers say rests on a misattributed quote.

Story Snapshot

El-Sayed’s 9/11 post drew heat over his ties to influencer Hasan Piker.
Fact-checkers say El-Sayed never said “America deserved 9/11.”
El-Sayed called Piker’s 2019 remark “dumb” and rejected it.
Deleted 9/11-related posts added fuel but do not prove endorsement.

Backlash Sparked By A Memorial Post And A Past Association

On the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Abdul El-Sayed shared a brief message honoring victims on his social media account. Soon after, critics recirculated his spring campaign appearances with online personality Hasan Piker. They argued the tie showed poor judgment because Piker said in 2019 that “America deserved 9/11.” The line came from Piker, not El-Sayed, but the link proved politically potent during a heated race in a closely watched swing state.

Fact-checkers reviewed the claim that El-Sayed shared or endorsed the phrase. They reported there is no evidence he said it, celebrated the attacks, or agreed with the idea. Reuters labeled the attribution “misleading” and traced the words to Piker’s 2019 livestream. Those findings undercut viral posts and campaign jabs that tried to place the quote in El-Sayed’s mouth during the anniversary debate.

El-Sayed’s On-Record Rejection Of The 2019 Remark

El-Sayed addressed the flap on national television and in follow-up interviews. He called Piker’s 2019 line “dumb,” said Piker had disavowed it, and stated plainly that “America didn’t deserve 9/11.” He also argued that opponents were using a guilt-by-association tactic to distract from policy issues. Those clear statements form the most direct record of his view and are consistent across multiple outlets that covered his response this month.

Independent outlets echoed those points while adding campaign context. Reports noted that El-Sayed did appear with Piker during the spring, a choice critics now cite to question judgment. But the same reports separated that decision from the false claim that El-Sayed used or believed the 2019 phrase. That distinction matters because the first issue is political vetting, while the second is a factual charge about his words.

Deleted Posts Keep Controversy Alive But Do Not Prove Agreement

Opponents highlighted older, now-deleted posts by El-Sayed that referenced the human toll of the post-9/11 era, including lives lost in later wars. Those deletions created more suspicion online and helped the story spread. However, the content did not show him endorsing Piker’s 2019 statement. It instead reflected a policy view about war costs that many Americans debate, especially near anniversaries, and it sits apart from the misattributed quote.

This fight fits a larger pattern in modern politics. Campaigns often use a real tie to a controversial figure to imply shared beliefs. Scholars describe this as argument by association, which can be persuasive when the link is close and the conduct is clear. But it can also slide into a guilt-by-association claim that confuses who said what. In this case, the record shows the quote came from Piker, while El-Sayed rejected it on the record.