Republicans deploy 9/11 attacks against Democrats in the US midterm campaign

An anniversary enters the campaign

Republican candidates and allied groups are using the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks to portray left-wing Democrats as hostile to the United States or insufficiently opposed to terrorism. Axios reported on September 10 that the tactic is appearing in several midterm contests, most visibly in Michigan’s Senate campaign. The development shifts a national commemoration into the closing phase of a competitive election season.

Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers and his allies have focused their attacks on Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed, according to the report. Their argument links El-Sayed to controversial statements made by other figures on the political left, even though his campaign says he has unequivocally condemned both terrorism and the 2001 attacks. The dispute is therefore partly about association: each side is contesting whose words and relationships fairly define a candidate.

The strategy reaches beyond Michigan. Republicans are attempting to make the election a choice about the ideological direction of the Democratic Party, rather than solely a referendum on the Trump administration. That approach revives campaign language frequently used during the years immediately following 9/11, when national security and perceived resolve against terrorism were central tests imposed on candidates.

Commemoration and electoral risk

The White House has separately proclaimed September 11, 2026, as Patriot Day and directed federal institutions to lower flags in memory of the 2,977 people killed in the attacks. That official observance establishes the anniversary’s national significance but does not endorse the campaign accusations reported by Axios. Keeping the commemoration separate from partisan claims is essential because the latter remain political arguments rather than findings by a public authority.

The tactic also carries risks for Republicans. Michigan has substantial Arab American and Muslim communities, and overly broad rhetoric can alienate voters whom the party has tried to court. It may also provoke scrutiny of whether candidates are addressing current security policy or using guilt by association. Democrats, meanwhile, must respond without allowing opponents to define the debate or appearing dismissive of the anniversary’s emotional weight.

The next test will be whether the rhetoric remains concentrated around anniversary events or becomes a durable theme through the November election. Watch for the content of Rogers’s convention speech, the response from El-Sayed and other targeted Democrats, and whether campaign advertising moves from criticism of specific statements to broader claims about religious or ethnic communities. Those distinctions will determine whether the strategy expands or generates a backlash.