NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
The battle between the left wing of the Democratic Party spilled into the arena Monday night during the Michigan Senate debate.
The debate took place one week before the Aug. 4 primary, in which both candidates used a final face-off to sharpen their competing arguments about who would best represent Michigan — and defeat the Republican candidate, former Rep. Mike Rogers, in the Nov. 3 general election.
During Monday night’s clash between competing wings of the Democratic Party, El-Sayed doubled down on his “ogre on a pike” remark and refused to apologize, but clarified that it was not aimed directly at Stevens but rather a moderate Democrat in Congress. El-Sayed, meanwhile, repeated his attacks on pro-Israel and corporate expenses that support Stevens, while rejecting the “socialist” label some have given him, describing himself as “just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works.”
Stevens, on the other hand, asked why El-Sayed was “hiding” by not releasing his complete tax returns, an attack he made since the first conversation of the two earlier this month, and pointed out his speech, foreign income and national political ambitions as possible liabilities in the general election when it comes to taking on Rogers and trying to win a seat in the US Senate.
SWING-STATE POLL ENDINGS CRISIS FOR RIGHT-LEFT AS RETURNED CANDIDATES SCHUMER COME BACK WITH KEY VOTING LOSSES
Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., has abandoned his neutrality in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, supporting U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, pictured left, as party leaders protested to prevent incumbent challenger Abdul El-Sayed, pictured right, from winning the nomination. (AP Photo/Kristen Norman)
El-Sayed confirms that Fetterman was ‘an ogre,’ and refuses to apologize
El-Sayed stood by the context of his controversial “ogre on a pike” speech when pressed by the president about whether he regretted the speech, which caused him to back down from his party, but clarified that it was about Seni. John Fetterman, D-Penn., not Stevens as some thought.
“I was talking about a guy named John Fetterman,” El-Sayed said, accusing the Pennsylvania Democrat of picking on one set of values before “throwing those values in the mud.”
El-Sayed did not apologize or retract the metaphor. Instead, he asserted that he had been opposed to Stevens’ mistreatment, including after his opposition at the Michigan Democratic Party convention.
PRESS RELEASE: REPUBLICAN-LED VOTE OPENS NEW DEMOCRAT SPLIT IN ISRAEL
Stevens later gave a straight answer: “Thanks for clarifying that you didn’t call me an ogre.”
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., speaks to reporters outside the Senate Chamber during a vote on Nov. 10, 2025 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The controversy stems from comments El-Sayed made during a recent Zoom meeting with donors, Politico reported, adding that El-Sayed was discussing how he could use his victory in the upcoming Michigan election on August 4 and the November election to build a national platform to move the Democratic Party further to the left and support future primary challenges, such as Fetterman.
“Well, you put one ogre on the pike, and everybody gets the message,” El-Sayed said, according to audio obtained by Politico. El-Sayed did not mention Stevens’ name in the recording; however, some Democrats interpreted the speech as referring to him. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who endorsed Stevens, called the speech a “violent, vulgar threat” and said the candidates should work to lower the political temperature.
Neera Tanden, a former Biden administration official who heads the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, linked the comments to broader allegations of sexism that have plagued the foundation.
“Calling your female opponent an ogre you want to pike doesn’t mean rapping that this race is sexist,” Tanden wrote in X.
AIPAC’s money with Israel is fueling a bitter fight
Tens of millions of dollars in foreign spending in support of Stevens was a bright spot, with the president repeatedly pressuring Congress that pro-Israel groups would influence his conduct in office.
Asked if the more than $46 million in AIPAC-related spending mentioned by the president should worry voters that he will do the party’s “bid,” Stevens replied, “Absolutely,” and defended his support for a two-state solution.
“I was clear, consistent and transparent,” Stevens said. “I want to see long-term peace.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES RAISES EYEBROWS BY SLAMMING AIPAC AS A ‘HARD-RIGHT’ PRO-ISRAEL GROUP
El-Sayed asserted that the spending revealed a stark difference between the candidates, saying that AIPAC-backed groups supported Stevens because they “knew he would be a reliable vote.”
“The difference between us is $46 million in AIPAC expenses,” El-Sayed said. “They made history in this race to help choose my opponent.”
He then linked that spending directly to Stevens’ recent vote in favor of more aid to Israel, accusing the Israeli government of working to “shut down the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.”
“I want your tax dollars to be used in Michigan to provide schools in Michigan, to build health care in Michigan, to build roads in Michigan,” El-Sayed said. “And I think that money sent over there to kill children and women is a very bad use of our tax dollars. Yet that’s the very money that’s going to buy $46 billion.”
El-Sayed later added that the United States should not “fight the stupid wars that AIPAC wants us to fight in the first place.”
Stevens countered that outside groups were supporting both campaigns and accused El-Sayed of benefiting from a super PAC funded in part by his father-in-law.
Stevens presses El-Sayed about unfiled tax returns and foreign income
Stevens continued to question El-Sayed’s financial disclosures, as he did in their interview earlier this month, accusing him of refusing to release his full tax returns while earning nearly $300,000 in foreign income.
“You haven’t released your full tax returns — $300,000 in other income while sitting in the podcast chair and selling the crappy health care remedies that RFK Jr. can handle,” Stevens said.
“You talk about taking money out of politics and putting money in people’s pockets, and yet, no one knows who’s putting money in your pocket,” he added, continuing the debate’s long-running attempt to portray El-Sayed as more interested in podcasts, high-profile political allies and building a celebrity for his state than doing a poor job representing Michigan.
El-Sayed responded that he had issued the required financial disclosures, which made up the difference between those requests and the full tax refunds Stevens was seeking.
“We’ve released all of our financial disclosures,” El-Sayed said, calling the issue a “distraction” before responding to Stevens’ transparency controversy and questioning the donors behind the outside organizations supporting his campaign.
Stevens described himself as “the only non-millionaire in this race” and argued that El-Sayed’s finances could give Republicans more leverage to use against him in November.
“What will the Republicans reveal in the general election that they will use against him?” he asked.
El-Sayed calls Senate filibuster ‘anti-democratic’
Asked to identify the most important thing Senate Democrats are failing to do, El-Sayed pointed to the legislative filibuster and the 60-vote limit he usually imposes.
“I’m against the filibuster,” El-Sayed said. “I think the filibuster was anti-democratic for a number of reasons.”
TRUMP WANTS THUNE TO KEEP THE SENATE IN THE WORD UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAW PASSES.
The US Capitol dome is illuminated as the House of Representatives returns to Washington to vote to reopen the state on Wednesday, November 12, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
El-Sayed said ending the filibuster will help Democrats pass the PRO Act, which would expand union protections and collective bargaining, impose tougher penalties for labor law violations and override state limits on mandatory union dues. He said it could also pave the way for strengthening the antitrust law, which El-Sayed said should be aggressive, as well as the wealth tax on billionaires and Medicare for All.
“Right now, the biggest threat to our democracy is the filibuster – it’s anti-democratic in the Senate – and money in politics,” he said.
The ICE standoff exposes deep divisions among Democratic rivals
The candidates also battled over the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with Stevens calling ICE a “rogue organization” while El-Sayed called it “brutal” and called for it to be abolished entirely.
Stevens said he is leading an effort in Congress to redirect the $70 billion allocated to ICE to health care, food assistance and local communities. “It’s not even a dime for this evil organization that’s causing damage,” Stevens said, accusing ICE of abusing its power and intimidating immigrant families.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent stands in front of a large American flag. ICE is expected to step up enforcement activities following a Supreme Court ruling allowing the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for more than 300,000 Haitians. (Photo by Charly Triballeau/ AFP via Getty Images)
El-Sayed, meanwhile, accused Stevens of hypocrisy, saying he had voted four times to increase ICE’s funding and praised its staff.
“I said we need to get rid of ICE,” El-Sayed said. “ICE is all about putting the power of the common law enforcement on our streets.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
Pressed that the term “abolish ICE” carries the same political weight as “defund the police,” El-Sayed argued that the government could still enforce immigration laws and secure the southern border through a replacement agency.
He stepped up criticism after a while, calling ICE a “brutal agency.”
“I think there’s no way to get past that without taking the agency back and building from scratch,” El-Sayed said.
Stevens refused his way as he focused more on talking than governing.
“Complaints and slogans are not solutions,” he said, pointing to his visit to an ICE detention center and his efforts to reform the agency through Congress.
