Michigan Senate Feud Turns Personal

United States courthouse with grand neoclassical columns — Photo: lev radin / Shutterstock

A Senate fight in Michigan just sank into body insults and “terrorist” labels—another sign our politics rewards outrage over facts.

Story Snapshot

Barstool Sports’ Dave Portnoy called Abdul El-Sayed a “terrorist,” and El-Sayed fired back by mocking Portnoy’s body, escalating a personal feud tied to the Senate race.
Reports say El-Sayed’s mother worked for an Islamic relief charity later tied by the U.S. Treasury to a global terrorist network, but she was never charged and denied any terror links.
Fact-checkers say claims that she knowingly aided terrorism are misleading and lack evidence, sharpening a debate over guilt by association.
The clash shows how social media heat can crowd out policy talk while stoking distrust in institutions on both the right and left.

What Sparked The Feud

On October 10, Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy posted that Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for United States Senate in Michigan, is a “terrorist,” citing past reports about El-Sayed’s mother’s work at a charity later linked by the United States Treasury to terrorism networks. El-Sayed hit back by mocking Portnoy’s body, shifting the spotlight from records and timelines to personal ridicule. The exchange rose after a rough debate week with Republican Mike Rogers.

The insults followed a debate where Rogers highlighted old reports that El-Sayed’s mother worked for the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the Treasury later designated within a terror-support network in 2004. The Detroit News said Portnoy’s attack did not add new proof against El-Sayed, but it amplified the claim to a massive audience. The comeback by El-Sayed added fuel, turning a records dispute into a viral tit-for-tat that drowns out policy issues important to voters.

What The Record Actually Shows

Coverage in 2026 repeats that El-Sayed’s mother reportedly worked at the charity from about 1999 to 2004, overlapping with the Treasury designation of the larger network in October 2004. Newsweek and others also note she was never charged and publicly denied any terror connections in 2004. Reuters cited Snopes and other fact-checks that call the charge she was a terrorist, or knowingly aided terrorists, misleading and missing key context.

Those fact-checks stress three separate questions: what the Treasury said about the network, what the United States arm did in later sanctions cases, and what any single employee knew or did. Reports say the United States branch admitted to sanctions violations involving Iraq years later, but no terrorism charges were brought against that entity’s officers. None of the reporting shows that Abdul El-Sayed himself aided terrorism, which is why the “terrorist” label remains unsupported by cited evidence.

Why This Keeps Happening In U.S. Politics

Political pros know that guilt by association works online because it is simple and scary. A study of voter behavior finds that when people sense a strong link between a group and a threat, they often transfer blame to those near the group, even without direct proof. In today’s media market, outrage travels fast. That helps partisans raise money and build clout, but it leaves the public with less light and more heat—exactly what many Americans say they are tired of.

Voters on the right see a press that once downplayed real terror finance risks and now polices language, while voters on the left see smears against minorities wrapped in national security talk. Both sides also see elites scoring clicks while big problems go unsolved. The fair path is hard but clear: separate what is proven from what is implied, hold candidates to facts, and reject personal mockery that hides weak claims.