The American people have once again demonstrated that, in a democracy, the ultimate source of political power rests with voters—not billionaires, wealthy interest groups or even the President of the United States. The projected victory of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s US Senate election on 3 November 2026 is a remarkable demonstration of this principle. Despite sustained personal attacks, religious and racial prejudice, enormous financial pressure and political manoeuvring, El-Sayed has defeated Republican candidate Mike Rogers in a closely watched contest. His victory is being projected by major American news organisations and makes him the first Muslim elected to the US Senate.

This outcome represents much more than an individual electoral success. It is a significant challenge to the influence of money, political establishment and divisive rhetoric in American democracy. El-Sayed entered the contest promising to transform politics by returning power to ordinary people and challenging a system in which wealthy donors and powerful interest groups exercise disproportionate influence.

A physician and former public health leader, with a brilliant track record of delivering health services, El-Sayed brought a distinctive perspective to the campaign. His understanding of the everyday problems facing American families, combined with his ability to communicate practical solutions, distinguished him from his opponents. Rather than allowing the campaign to become dominated by personal attacks, he consistently returned to a few central messages: putting money back into people's pockets, getting money out of politics and ensuring healthcare for all.

He repeatedly said that America is big enough for all of us – it does not matter how you pray or not pray at all. He said, many is not the reason for increase in gas price. It is the wrong policies of the President that has made the lives worse for the average Americans.

His campaign slogan captured the concerns of ordinary voters. People should not have to struggle simply to buy groceries, purchase essential medicines, fill their cars with petrol or send their children to school. These are basic necessities, he argued, and a prosperous country such as the United States should be able to make them affordable.

El-Sayed also made his opposition to unconditional American military assistance to Israel a central part of his political position. He argued that public money should be invested in the needs of American communities rather than supporting military actions that have caused immense suffering Palestinians. He did not support any funding to Israel that has committed genocide and war crime in Gaza. His position was politically controversial, but he maintained that voters had the right to demand accountability over how their tax money was spent.

Personal attacks and religious prejudice

Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of the campaign was the intensity of the attacks directed at El-Sayed by President Donald Trump. Instead of concentrating exclusively on policy differences, Trump repeatedly targeted the candidate's Muslim faith, name and background.

Among the expressions Trump used were “radical jihadist”, “jihadist” and “Muslim Brotherhood member”. He also accused El-Sayed of being “on the side of the terrorists” and told him to “go back to where he came from”, although he was born in Michigan. On another occasion, Trump deliberately called him “Mohammed” and declared: “I'm the president. I can call him whatever the hell I want.”

Trump further suggested that El-Sayed would represent a security threat in the Senate, saying that he would be the only senator required to pass through a metal detector. El-Sayed responded with a sharp retort: he would be willing to go through a metal detector if Trump would agree to go through a lie detector.

Trump also attempted to associate El-Sayed with the imposition of Sharia law, invoked the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and suggested that Jewish and Black voters would be foolish to support him.

Such statements raise serious questions about Islamophobia, racial stereotyping and religious prejudice in American electoral politics. Political disagreement is a legitimate part of democracy, and candidates must be open to criticism of their policies and public statements. However, portraying a fellow American as a terrorist or a foreigner without credible evidence is fundamentally different from challenging his political programme.

A candidate's religion or ethnic background should never be treated as evidence of disloyalty or a threat to national security. The American electorate's response to these attacks will be closely examined, particularly because the campaign attempted to make religious identity a defining issue in a contest that should have centred on public policy and the future of Michigan.

A campaign against corporate financial influence

Another major challenge facing El-Sayed was the extraordinary financial power deployed against him during the Democratic primary. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), through its affiliated political action committee, the United Democracy Project, spent close to US$30 million supporting his primary opponent, Representative Haley Stevens, and opposing El-Sayed. This was reported as the largest investment the organisation had made in a single electoral race.

El-Sayed nevertheless won the Democratic nomination. He repeatedly criticised the influence of outside money in elections and argued that political representatives should be accountable to their constituents rather than wealthy and corporate donors and powerful lobbying organisations.

The scale of the financial imbalance was striking. During the primary campaign, El-Sayed described himself as being outspent by approximately eleven to one. His ability to overcome that disadvantage demonstrated the strength of grassroots mobilisation and the appeal of a campaign focused on the cost of living, healthcare and political accountability.

His victory should not, however, be interpreted as a rejection or approval of any particular religious or ethnic community. Criticism of a foreign government's policies and opposition to military assistance are legitimate political positions. The central democratic question is whether elected representatives should be influenced by ordinary voters or by powerful financial interests.

A broader message from Muslim and minority voters

El-Sayed's victory is part of a wider political development involving Muslim and minority representation in the United States. Muslim Americans have increasingly participated in electoral politics, sought public office and demanded that their concerns be addressed as part of the national political debate.

The election also demonstrated that candidates should not be judged by religious identity or ethnic background. Voters are entitled to evaluate their representatives on competence, integrity, policy positions and their ability to improve people's lives.

Both Congress Women Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) faced vicious racial and religious vilifications but have been re-elected with increased votes.

The attempt to use anti-Muslim rhetoric as an electoral weapon may therefore have produced the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than allowing religious prejudice to dominate the debate, El-Sayed kept returning to issues that affect people across religious, racial and ethnic boundaries: household expenses, healthcare, education, employment and the influence of money in politics. Very wisely, he did not respond to any unhelpful distracting personal attacks despite repeated incitement by the President and his opponent.

A changing political landscape in Washington

The implications of the 2026 midterm elections extend beyond Michigan. Election projections indicate that Democrats have gained control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If confirmed as counting and certification are completed, this will significantly change the political balance in Washington and create a stronger congressional check on President Trump's administration.

A divided government—or one in which the President's party lacks control of Congress—can have substantial consequences for legislation, public expenditure, foreign policy and executive accountability. Congressional oversight will become particularly important in areas where presidential decisions face strong political or constitutional objections.

There is also a significant development concerning American assistance to Israel. On 3 November, Trump said that the United States would end its approximately US$4 billion in annual aid to Israel after 2026, while continuing arms sales and other forms of assistance if required. He described Israel as sufficiently prosperous to manage without the annual funding. However, the existing US-Israel assistance agreement runs through 2028, and the practical and legal implications of ending the assistance earlier remain to be clarified. The announcement is particularly noteworthy given the growing public debate in the United States about the war in Gaza and the use of American taxpayer money.

People's power is the ultimate decider

Abdul El-Sayed's victory offers an important lesson for democracies everywhere. Money can purchase advertising, political influence and access to powerful institutions, but it cannot automatically purchase public trust. Presidential endorsement, political intimidation and personal attacks cannot guarantee electoral success.

The people of Michigan have sent a message that their economic security, access to healthcare and political future matter more than attempts to divide them through religion, race or ethnicity. El-Sayed's success also demonstrates that a candidate can challenge powerful interests by presenting a clear program, maintaining consistency and building a broad grassroots movement.

His victory does not mean that the problems of American democracy have been solved. The influence of wealthy donors, political lobbying, racial discrimination and religious prejudice will remain subjects of public debate. Nor does one election guarantee that campaign promises will be fulfilled. El-Sayed will now face the difficult task of translating his commitments into legislation and practical improvements in people's lives.

Nevertheless, his achievement is historic. It demonstrates that the power of ordinary people, when mobilised around shared concerns and democratic principles, can overcome formidable political and financial obstacles.

Ultimately, democracy belongs to the people. No president, billionaire, lobby group or political establishment can permanently stand above the collective voice of an informed electorate.