Political Ad Text Blast Called Antisemitic

Man in suit writing on large campaign banner with stars and stripes
Photo: Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock

A pro-El-Sayed texting ad that blamed Israel for high grocery prices set off a storm, and his campaign says it had nothing to do with it.

Story Snapshot

  • Rebellion PAC sent texts tying rising prices to support for Israel; critics called it antisemitic.
  • Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign disavowed the ad and said it was not affiliated with them.
  • El-Sayed has criticized Israel and U.S. policy, fueling a broader fight over his stance.
  • Outside money on both sides is shaping Michigan’s Senate race narrative.

What sparked the backlash

Rebellion PAC sent a texting ad that linked grocery prices to U.S. support for Israel and backed Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate bid. Critics said the message used antisemitic tropes and wrongly blamed Israel for inflation. Democratic Representative Haley Stevens called it fearmongering and said it hurt her party’s chances in Michigan’s close races. News reports said the outside group spent about $10,000 on texting and $1,000 on digital ads supporting El-Sayed in recent weeks.

El-Sayed’s campaign moved quickly to distance itself from the ad. A spokesperson told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the ad “is not affiliated in any way” with the campaign and said, “No one speaks for Abdul but himself and his campaign”. The campaign framed its own message around opposing President Trump’s policies and their impact on prices for Michigan families, not around the PAC’s Israel framing. Major outlets reported the disavowal the same day.

How the candidate’s record complicates the story

El-Sayed has taken sharp public positions on Israel that go beyond standard party lines. He has said Israel is not a U.S. friend and accused it of using the United States as a shield in war, and he has criticized unconditional U.S. support during the Gaza conflict. Michigan rabbis pressed him on statements about ethno-states, Gaza, and aid, showing concern among local Jewish leaders. These quotes give opponents ammo to argue the PAC’s tone tracks his broader stance, even as the campaign denies any tie to the ad.

That tension leaves voters sorting two separate issues. First, whether the campaign authorized or coordinated the texting ad. Second, whether El-Sayed’s own words signal a policy view they support or reject. The first question is legal and factual. The second is political and moral. The campaign’s statement addresses the first point, but it did not directly say whether it agrees or disagrees with the ad’s content about Israel and prices.

Why outside groups muddy accountability

Federal rules allow independent groups to spend money for or against candidates as long as they do not coordinate with campaigns. After Citizens United and related cases, these “independent expenditures” can be large, fast, and sharp-edged. They must carry disclaimers but do not need a candidate’s approval. This setup lets donors shape messages while giving candidates cover to reject harsh or risky ads when blowback hits.

That legal distance does not erase political spillover. Voters often see alignment even when lawyers see separation. In Michigan, pro-Israel groups also poured in money with mailers and attack ads, including messages aimed at Jewish voters, keeping Israel policy at the center of the race. When both sides deploy outside spending, the public gets a louder fight and less clarity about who is responsible for which claims.

What matters for Michigan voters now

Michigan voters face two clear choices. They can judge El-Sayed by his on-record statements and platform, or by the most extreme messages from groups that support him. The fairest test is to focus on what the candidate says he will do in office. The campaign says it is fighting Trump-era policies tied to high prices. Critics say El-Sayed’s Israel stance is disqualifying or divisive. Both arguments will follow voters into the ballot box.

For citizens tired of rising costs and political games, this episode is a reminder of how power works. Outside groups talk loudly. Campaigns claim distance. Voters get stuck decoding motives and money flows. The surest way to cut through the noise is to demand direct answers: who paid, who approved, and what the candidate will vote for on aid, prices, and the rules that let outside groups speak so loudly in the first place.

Sources:

twitchy.com, jta.org, jewishinsider.com, bridgemi.com, thehill.com, theatlantic.com, newsweek.com, sunherald.com, bostonglobe.com