Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed faces bipartisan backlash over posts targeting Usha Vance and Natalie Harp

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed drew sharp criticism from Republicans and even some Democrats after posting social media messages targeting second lady Usha Vance's ethnicity and Trump aide Natalie Harp, posts critics called racist and sexist.

El-Sayed, a self-described socialist running against Republican former Congressman Mike Rogers, posted a message Saturday invoking Usha Vance after Vice President JD Vance slammed him during a rally in Ohio for his stated adherence to Sharia law. El-Sayed's post read: "So do we think JD is taking Usha with him back in time to meet Papaw, or no..." The remark appeared to suggest that Vance's grandfather, whom the vice president famously calls "Papaw", would not have accepted Usha Vance because of her Indian heritage, the New York Post reported.

El-Sayed's campaign did not return a request for comment from Fox News Digital. Representatives for the vice president's office and Usha Vance also did not immediately respond.

The post amounted to a political candidate dragging a spouse, someone not running for office, into a fight, while simultaneously assuming that white, rural, Midwestern families are inherently racist. That two-for-one managed to offend people across the political spectrum.

Earlier that same day, El-Sayed went after Natalie Harp

The Usha Vance post was not an isolated lapse. Earlier on Saturday, El-Sayed had posted a separate message directed at Natalie Harp, an aide to President Donald Trump. His post read: "Natalie, I think he's had a little too much iPad for the week. He needs his rest." The remark followed weeks of online speculation by far-left media figures and Democrats implying an improper relationship between Harp and the president, a smear campaign El-Sayed appeared to amplify with his post.

That post came after Trump blasted El-Sayed at a rally for campaigning alongside Hasan Piker, a far-left commentator who has said "America deserved 9/11." El-Sayed chose not to respond to the substance of that criticism. He chose instead to take a shot at a woman on the president's staff.

Tudor Dixon, the Republican former gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, connected the two posts and drew a pointed conclusion. Dixon has followed Michigan politics closely, and she did not hold back:

"He goes after Usha. He goes after Natalie [Harp]. This coward picks on women who are not in his fight. Imagine how he would treat female staffers in the halls of Congress."

Republicans piled on, and so did Democrats backing his opponent

The backlash was swift and came from multiple directions. Rep. Brandon Gill, a Texas Republican, responded on X by asking a question that cut to the core of El-Sayed's assumption:

"Why does Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed just assume that all White midwestern grandparents are racist?"

Commentator Ryan Girdusky framed the political stakes for Michigan voters directly. "If you're a rural White American living in Michigan, just remember El-Sayed believes you're a racist," Girdusky posted on X. Former Florida state Rep. Ben Graber was more succinct: "El Sayed is now attacking Wives of US leaders? What a guy."

Journalist Emily Schrader called El-Sayed "a racist creep." GOP strategist Matt Whitlock posted screenshots of both of El-Sayed's messages and offered a broader assessment of the candidate's judgment:

"This is what I'm talking about. Just a bad campaign, bad candidate, bad instincts. Sitting at home on a Saturday morning tweeting bad takes that any normal campaign would shut down."

But the most politically damaging criticism may have come from El-Sayed's own side. An X account run by Democrats supporting El-Sayed's opponent Mike Rogers posted a blistering response that referenced attack ads from the Democratic primary itself:

"This is why there were ads in the primary correctly highlighting how sexist and misogynistic Abdul is. He has so much contempt for women. If you're over the politics of division. Reject Abdul El-Sayed."

When a candidate draws accusations of sexism from an account run by members of his own party, the problem is not partisan spin. The problem is the candidate.

A pattern of confrontation, with the wrong targets

El-Sayed's Saturday posts fit a pattern. Rather than engaging the substance of attacks from Vance and Trump, he targeted women adjacent to those men. Vance criticized El-Sayed's stated adherence to Sharia law. El-Sayed responded not by defending his views or challenging Vance's characterization, but by dragging Usha Vance, a private citizen serving as second lady, into the exchange and implying her husband's family would reject her on racial grounds.

Trump criticized El-Sayed for campaigning with a commentator who said America deserved the September 11 attacks. El-Sayed responded not by addressing that association, but by posting a dismissive jab at a female White House aide. In both cases, the candidate avoided the policy argument and went personal, and went after women who were not his opponents.

El-Sayed is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, a state where voters across the political spectrum have shown little patience for candidates who traffic in personal attacks rather than policy substance. His opponent, former Congressman Mike Rogers, has the backing of at least some Democrats willing to publicly denounce El-Sayed's conduct, an unusual dynamic in a general election.

Whitlock's critique may have landed the sharpest point about what the posts revealed. A serious Senate campaign has staff, message discipline, and a basic instinct for which fights to pick. El-Sayed spent a Saturday morning firing off social media posts that alienated potential allies, energized his opponents, and gave his own party's voters a reason to cross the aisle, all without landing a single blow on the men he was supposedly fighting.

If you want to know how a candidate will handle the pressure of the U.S. Senate, watch what he does when he is challenged. El-Sayed was challenged on policy and responded by going after wives and aides. Michigan voters can draw their own conclusions.