John James Under Fire: Did Michigan's Congressman Cross the Line on Islam?

 

John James has built much of his political identity around his service as an Army veteran who fought in Iraq. But critics argue that during Michigan's 2026 gubernatorial campaign, he crossed a constitutional and moral line by portraying peaceful Muslim Americans as if they were the same extremists he fought overseas.

The controversy began after a large Ashura procession in Dearborn, where thousands of Shia Muslims gathered to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, one of the most significant religious observances in Islam. The event was peaceful, permitted, and protected by the First Amendment. There were no reports of violence, terrorism, or criminal activity associated with the procession.

Yet after viewing footage of the event, James publicly declared:

"I didn't go and fight extremists to have them on our doorstep here. Under no circumstances will we be a home in Michigan for extremism."

Those words immediately ignited outrage across Michigan's Arab American and Muslim communities.

Conflating Faith With Extremism

The central accusation against James is not simply that he criticized terrorism. Americans across the political spectrum reject terrorism.

The accusation is that he appeared to blur the distinction between violent extremists overseas and American citizens peacefully practicing their religion in Dearborn.

By invoking his combat experience in Iraq while discussing a religious procession in Michigan, James effectively invited the public to view Muslim worship through the lens of war.

For many Muslim Americans, that comparison was deeply offensive.

Ashura is not a political rally. It is a centuries-old religious observance honoring sacrifice, justice, and faith. Equating participants in such a procession with extremists risks stigmatizing an entire religious community based solely on their public expression of faith.

The "On Our Doorstep" Remark

James's statement that extremists were "on our doorstep" carried particular weight.

Most of the participants in the Dearborn procession were not foreign nationals. They were Michigan residents, American citizens, taxpayers, veterans, business owners, students, and families exercising rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Describing them as something arriving "on our doorstep" suggested they were outsiders rather than fellow Americans.

Critics argue that this language mirrors longstanding xenophobic rhetoric that portrays religious or ethnic minorities as foreign threats regardless of how long they have lived in the United States.

"Assimilate or Go Back"

Rather than clarifying his original remarks, James escalated the controversy.

He stated:

"If you come to America, you must respect our laws, assimilate into our culture, embrace the Constitution and pledge allegiance to the United States. Otherwise, you should go back to your home country."

That statement immediately raised another question.

Who exactly was James talking about?

The Ashura participants were not shown violating the law. They were exercising constitutional freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly.

Many were born in the United States. Others had been American citizens for decades.

Telling people participating in a lawful religious procession to "go back to your home country" suggested that visible expressions of Islam made them somehow less American.

What exactly did John James mean when he said people should "assimilate"?  Does "assimilation" mean Irish Americans should no longer celebrate St. Patrick's Day with parades through Detroit? Should Mexican Americans stop holding Cinco de Mayo celebrations? Should German Americans abandon Oktoberfest festivals? And what about the thousands of Catholics who publicly express their faith in Eucharistic processions? Just yesterday, Catholics marched in honor of Jesus in communities across the country, including a procession of roughly 7,000 participants in Minnesota. America has long embraced the idea that citizens can share a common civic identity while also openly celebrating their cultural and religious traditions. If John James believes otherwise, he owes voters a clear explanation of what he means by "assimilate" and how he distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable public expressions of faith and heritage.

That is why critics described the remarks as xenophobic.

Turning Government Power Against Critics

The controversy intensified when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Michigan) condemned James's remarks.

Instead of retracting or clarifying his comments, James's campaign labeled CAIR a radical organization and vowed to seek its designation as a terrorist organization if he became governor.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with CAIR's politics, critics argue that threatening to use the power of government against a civil-rights organization immediately after it criticized a politician raises serious constitutional concerns.

The First Amendment protects not only religious liberty but also the right to criticize elected officials without fear of government retaliation.

Religious Freedom—or Religious Suspicion?

James later attempted to defend himself by saying he would protect the religious freedom of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and everyone else while opposing extremism.

That statement acknowledged an important constitutional principle.

But it left unanswered the central question that has continued to follow him:

What specific evidence showed that the Muslims participating in Dearborn's Ashura procession were extremists?

Public reporting did not identify violence, terrorist activity, or criminal conduct by the participants that would justify such a comparison.

Without that evidence, critics argue James substituted suspicion for proof.

A Dangerous Precedent

America has spent decades distinguishing peaceful Muslims from violent terrorist organizations.

Military veterans, law enforcement officials, intelligence professionals, and constitutional scholars have repeatedly warned that conflating Islam itself with terrorism undermines both national security and civil liberties.

James's critics argue that his remarks ignored those distinctions.

By framing peaceful religious expression as something resembling the extremism he encountered in Iraq, they contend he reinforced stereotypes that many Muslim Americans have spent years trying to overcome.

Political Fallout

Michigan is home to one of the nation's largest Arab American and Muslim populations.

Communities such as Dearborn have produced military veterans, police officers, physicians, educators, entrepreneurs, engineers, and elected officials who have contributed significantly to the state's economy and civic life.

Many viewed James's comments not as an attack on terrorism, but as an attack on their identity as both Muslims and Americans.

Whether voters ultimately agree with that assessment will be decided at the ballot box.

But one thing is clear: the controversy transformed what might have been a discussion about public safety into a broader debate over religious liberty, equal citizenship, and whether a gubernatorial candidate unfairly portrayed an entire faith community through the actions of extremists abroad.

For critics, the issue is not simply politics.

It is whether an elected official entrusted with representing all Michiganders can distinguish between constitutional religious freedom and the enemies America has fought overseas.

.

John James Has Abandoned Constitutional Conservatism

For years, John James has campaigned as a constitutional conservative and an America First Republican. Yet when his congressional voting record is examined, many conservatives are asking whether his actions match his campaign promises.

Yesterday's vote on the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has only intensified those concerns.

Despite objections from constitutional conservatives, James voted in favor of the NDAA with Section 219 still intact. That provision expands defense cooperation between the United States and Israel in areas including artificial intelligence, cyber defense, biotechnology, directed-energy weapons, intelligence sharing, military networking, and advanced defense research.

Supporters argue the provision strengthens one of America's closest allies and improves military readiness in an increasingly dangerous world.

Critics see something very different.

They argue that Congress should never approve legislation that further integrates America's military technology, intelligence infrastructure, and defense research with any foreign nation, regardless of how close that ally may be. In their view, such cooperation deserves far greater constitutional scrutiny because Congress's primary obligation is to protect American sovereignty and ensure that U.S. defense policy remains fully under American control.

John James nevertheless voted yes.

For many constitutional conservatives, that vote represents another step away from the America First principles James promised during his campaigns.

Nor do critics believe this vote stands alone.

They point to what they describe as a pattern in which James has repeatedly sided with House leadership and the Washington establishment on key national security and technology issues.

One example frequently cited is his opposition to legislation addressing the so-called "kill switch" in connected vehicle technology. Supporters of that proposal argued it would have prohibited or restricted the federal government's ability to require or facilitate technology that could remotely disable privately owned vehicles. They viewed the measure as an important safeguard for civil liberties, private property rights, and protection against future government overreach.

James voted against that proposal.

His supporters may argue the amendment was unnecessary or that existing law already provides adequate safeguards.

His critics see the vote differently.

They argue that constitutional conservatives should err on the side of limiting government power whenever possible, especially when emerging technologies could someday be used to expand federal authority over ordinary Americans.

Taken together, these votes have caused many grassroots conservatives to question whether John James governs as the constitutional conservative he campaigned to be or as another reliable vote for Washington leadership.

Campaign speeches are easy.

Voting records are permanent.

Every elected official has the right to explain and defend his votes. John James has every opportunity to tell Michigan voters why he believes supporting Section 219 and opposing the so-called kill switch proposal served the national interest.

Voters, however, have an equally important responsibility.

They should judge elected officials not by campaign advertisements or political slogans, but by the record they compile once entrusted with public office.

For many constitutional conservatives, yesterday's NDAA vote was not just another vote on military spending. It was another entry in a growing record that they believe reflects an increasingly interventionist approach to government, national security, and foreign policy—one that they argue is difficult to reconcile with the constitutional conservative platform John James used to win office.

Ultimately, Michigan voters will decide whether those concerns are justified. But one thing is certain: yesterday's vote has ensured that John James' record, not his rhetoric, will remain at the center of that debate.

John James Once Called Trump “Not Fit to Lead.” Now He Wants Voters to Forget

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate John James has spent much of his political career presenting himself as a loyal ally of President Donald Trump. Today, James praises Trump as a transformational leader, highlights Trump’s endorsement of his campaign and tells Republican voters that the two men have stood together through “thick and thin.”

But James’ political record includes a sharply different assessment of Trump — one that raises questions about conviction, consistency and political expediency. Is John James j7dt an opportunist?

In December 2022, John James publicly declared that Donald Trump could not be trusted and was “not fit to lead.”

“A man who would suspend the Constitution can’t be trusted,” James said. “Anyone who will put their egos over people is not fit to lead.”

Those were not the words of a Democrat, a liberal commentator or a member of the anti-Trump resistance. They came from a Republican who had already received Trump’s endorsement in two Michigan Senate campaigns and who was preparing to take office in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Yet within months, James abandoned that position and endorsed the same man he had described as untrustworthy and unfit for leadership.

What Prompted James’ Condemnation?

The controversy began on December 3, 2022, when Trump posted a statement on Truth Social responding to claims that social-media companies and Democratic political figures had worked to suppress reporting about Hunter Biden before the 2020 presidential election.

Trump asked whether the 2020 election results should be thrown out or whether a new election should be held. He then wrote that alleged election fraud permitted the “termination” of constitutional rules, regulations and articles.

The statement immediately generated criticism because the Constitution does not contain a mechanism allowing a defeated presidential candidate to suspend it or discard election results based on allegations posted on social media.

Trump’s remarks came only weeks after he had formally announced another campaign for president. As a result, Republicans were confronted with a direct question: Could they support a candidate who appeared willing to set aside constitutional safeguards to return himself to power?

John James initially answered that question forcefully.

On December 6, James said that a person willing to suspend the Constitution “can’t be trusted” and was “not fit to lead.”

It was one of the strongest condemnations James had ever issued against Trump.

James Did Not Merely Disagree on Policy

James’ language is important.

He did not simply say Trump had chosen the wrong words. He did not characterize the statement as an unfortunate distraction. He did not say that Trump needed to clarify his position.

James questioned Trump’s trustworthiness and fitness for leadership.

For a politician who frequently emphasizes his military service and oath to the Constitution, the statement appeared to establish a clear red line. James seemed to be saying that constitutional government must take priority over loyalty to any political leader.

But that red line did not last.

Seven Months Later, James Endorsed Trump

In July 2023, James endorsed Trump’s campaign to return to the White House.

The endorsement came approximately seven months after James had said Trump could not be trusted and was not fit to lead. James did not identify any major apology, constitutional clarification or change in behavior that had caused him to reverse his judgment.

Instead, he joined Michigan’s other Republican members of Congress in supporting Trump.

The reversal attracted national attention because James had moved from declaring Trump unfit for leadership to actively helping him regain the presidency.

James’ decision demonstrated that his December 2022 denunciation was not the beginning of an organized effort to oppose Trump. He did not launch a constitutional accountability campaign. He did not endorse one of Trump’s Republican primary opponents. He did not make Trump’s constitutional statement a central issue in Congress.

He simply moved on.

Did James “Pursue” His Opposition to Trump?

There is little evidence that James pursued the matter beyond issuing the original statement.

He did not introduce a congressional resolution censuring Trump over the remarks. He did not lead a Republican coalition arguing that Trump should be disqualified from the party’s nomination. He did not continue publicly describing Trump as untrustworthy or unfit.

Instead, James reversed course and endorsed him.

That distinction matters. Political candidates occasionally disagree with members of their own party. But James’ original criticism concerned the Constitution itself and a candidate’s basic fitness to hold power.

If James sincerely believed Trump was unfit to lead in December 2022, voters are entitled to ask what changed by July 2023.

Did James conclude that Trump had withdrawn or corrected the position? Did James decide the constitutional issue was no longer important? Or did Trump’s continued dominance of the Republican Party make opposition politically inconvenient?

James has never provided a detailed public explanation that fully reconciles those two positions.

A Longer History of Shifting Language

The 2022 reversal was not the first time James had attempted to balance criticism of Trump with political loyalty to him.

During his 2018 Senate campaign, James declared that he would support Trump “2,000%.” Trump endorsed James in the Republican primary and later campaigned for him.

During the 2020 election, however, leaked audio revealed James discussing areas in which he disagreed with Trump. James cited issues including proposed Great Lakes funding cuts, Trump’s vulgar description of certain countries and Trump’s criticism of deceased political figures.

James also explained why he did not criticize Trump more aggressively in public. He argued that remaining publicly quiet could give him access and influence inside the administration.

“Donald Trump doesn’t need less Black folks around him, he needs more,” James said during the private discussion.

That explanation suggested James was willing to mute public disagreements as a political strategy. His approach was not necessarily unconditional approval of Trump, but a calculation that access and influence were more valuable than public confrontation.

The December 2022 statement temporarily broke that pattern. James’ words were direct, public and personal: Trump could not be trusted and was not fit to lead.

The break proved temporary.

James Rebrands Himself as Trump’s Partner

When James announced his campaign for Michigan governor in April 2025, he portrayed his relationship with Trump very differently.

“President Trump and I have been in each other’s corner through thick and thin for eight years — no reason that will end now,” James said in his gubernatorial announcement.

That claim omitted the fact that James had once publicly declared Trump unfit for leadership.

The phrase “through thick and thin” suggests uninterrupted loyalty. The historical record shows something more complicated: strong support, private criticism, public condemnation and then renewed loyalty.

In June 2026, Trump endorsed James for governor. James responded by calling Trump “the greatest President of my lifetime” and thanking him for his “complete and total endorsement.”

The Trump endorsement became a major boost for James in the Republican primary and helped consolidate establishment support around his campaign. (AP News)

The Constitutional Question Never Went Away

James’ reversal is especially significant because the dispute was not primarily about taxes, spending, foreign policy or personality. It involved the constitutional transfer of presidential power.

James is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an individual president or political party.

That background gave his December 2022 statement additional weight. James appeared to be applying the principles associated with that oath when he said a man willing to suspend the Constitution could not be trusted.

The unanswered question is why the constitutional principle that made Trump unfit in December 2022 was apparently no longer disqualifying seven months later.

Trump’s dominance of the Republican electorate offers an obvious political explanation. Opposing Trump carried the risk of alienating the voters James would need for future campaigns, particularly a statewide Republican primary.

By endorsing Trump in 2023 and closely aligning himself with Trump afterward, James restored his standing with the party’s MAGA base and positioned himself for Trump’s eventual endorsement in the 2026 governor’s race.

That may have been politically effective. It does not resolve the contradiction.

James’ Record Gives His Opponents an Opening

James’ Republican opponents can use the episode to question whether his current loyalty to Trump is genuine or convenient.

A rival can argue that James condemned Trump when he believed the party might be moving in another direction, then returned to Trump once it became clear that Trump remained the Republican Party’s dominant figure.

Democrats can make a different argument. They can say James recognized the danger of Trump’s constitutional rhetoric, accurately described it, and then abandoned his own judgment to protect his political future.

Both attacks lead to the same underlying question: What does John James truly believe?

If Trump was not fit to lead in December 2022, why did James help him return to power?

If Trump was fit to lead by July 2023, why did James use such sweeping and definitive language only months earlier?

A Question of Judgment, Not Just Loyalty

The controversy is not simply about whether James is sufficiently loyal to Trump. It is also about James’ judgment.

One possibility is that James was correct in December 2022 and later sacrificed principle for political survival.

Another is that James issued an exaggerated condemnation in the heat of the moment and later reconsidered.

A third possibility is that both statements were shaped primarily by the political needs of the moment.

None of those explanations is particularly flattering.

Michigan voters may ultimately care more about the economy, roads, schools, taxes and public safety than a statement made several years earlier. But gubernatorial candidates also ask voters to trust their character and consistency.

James’ own words created a standard against which he can be measured.

“A man who would suspend the Constitution can’t be trusted,” James said.

Today, John James is asking Michigan Republicans to trust both Donald Trump and himself — while offering little explanation for why the man he once called untrustworthy and unfit to lead is now, in James’ words, the greatest president of his lifetime.

That contradiction deserves a direct answer before Michigan voters choose their next governor.

 

Sunday Wildfire Smoke Outlook for Michigan

 

MICHIGAN — There is encouraging news for Michigan residents as wildfire smoke conditions continue to improve, although some areas of the state may still experience reduced air quality on Sunday.

A shift in the wind behind a cold front will allow some Canadian wildfire smoke to drift back across the Great Lakes late Saturday night into Sunday. As cooler air settles in, some of that smoke could mix down to the surface.

The greatest concern remains across Michigan's Upper Peninsula and portions of the northwest Lower Peninsula, where smoke concentrations could become high enough to produce Unhealthy or even Very Unhealthy air quality at times.

For Metro Detroit, Southeast Michigan and much of the southern Lower Peninsula, conditions are expected to be significantly better than they were over the past two days. Air Quality Index (AQI) values are generally expected to range between 70 and 120, placing conditions in the Moderate to Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups categories.

Most healthy adults should be able to continue normal outdoor activities. However, people with asthma, COPD, heart disease, young children, older adults and anyone particularly sensitive to smoke should consider limiting prolonged outdoor activity if smoke becomes noticeable.

Forecasters expect Monday to bring generally moderate air quality across much of Michigan. Beyond that, the forecast becomes less certain and will largely depend on wildfire activity in Ontario and the prevailing wind pattern.

There is reason for cautious optimism. Rain recently fell across much of the active wildfire region stretching from Minnesota's Boundary Waters into Ontario, helping firefighters and reducing fire intensity in many locations. However, the storms also produced lightning, which could spark new wildfires in the coming days. Officials are continuing to monitor the situation.

The dense plume of wildfire smoke that blanketed much of the Great Lakes over the past several days is continuing to move east toward the Atlantic Ocean, significantly improving air quality across Michigan. While additional smoke may occasionally drift back into the region over the coming week, current forecasts indicate it will be far less concentrated than the smoke that impacted the state recently. Any future periods of poor air quality will depend on new wildfire growth in Canada and changing wind patterns.

While some haze may linger Sunday, especially across northern Michigan, the overall outlook for most of the state is considerably better than it was heading into the weekend. Residents should continue monitoring local air quality forecasts, particularly those with respiratory conditions, but the worst of this round of smoke appears to be moving away.

Mike Cox Exits Michigan Governor's Race, Leaving Perry Johnson as John James' Remaining GOP Challenger

LANSING, Mich. — Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has suspended his campaign for governor, narrowing the Republican primary to a head-to-head contest between U.S. Rep. John James and businessman Perry Johnson.

Cox announced Friday that he was ending his campaign following President Donald Trump's endorsement of James, saying the endorsement significantly changed the dynamics of the race. He also said he intends to support James in the general election.

Cox's departure comes as Perry Johnson has continued to build support among many grassroots Republicans, positioning himself as the remaining outsider in the race. With the Republican field now consolidated, Johnson becomes the sole major challenger to James and will seek to capitalize on voters looking for an alternative to the establishment-backed campaign.

A successful entrepreneur and longtime advocate for government reform, Johnson has argued throughout the campaign that Michigan Republicans—not endorsements or political insiders—should ultimately decide the party's nominee at the ballot box. His campaign has focused on issues including reducing government spending, lowering taxes, supporting law enforcement, and expanding economic opportunity.

Cox, who served two terms as Michigan attorney general and previously sought the governorship in 2010, thanked Michigan voters for allowing him to serve as a Marine, prosecutor and attorney general, describing public service as the most rewarding experience of his career.

Johnson, who narrowly missed qualifying for the 2022 Republican gubernatorial primary after thousands of petition signatures submitted by multiple campaigns were ruled invalid, has since rebuilt a statewide political organization and returned to the campaign trail with renewed support from many Republican activists.

With absentee voting underway and the Republican primary drawing closer, the race now becomes a direct contest between James, backed by President Trump's endorsement, and Johnson, who is betting that a strong grassroots organization and outsider message can resonate with Republican voters across Michigan.

Pro-Stevens Ads Create False Impression of Obama Endorsement in Michigan Senate Primary

Lansing — Michigan voters are being flooded with political advertisements featuring former President Barack Obama praising U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, but one critical fact is often left unclear: Obama has not endorsed Stevens in the 2026 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

The footage appearing in television, digital and mail advertisements is not from the current Senate campaign. It comes from an October 2018 Democratic rally in Detroit, when Obama supported Stevens during her first campaign for the U.S. House.

“She was a critical part of my team that helped the American auto industry come roaring back,” Obama says in the recycled footage.

The statement is authentic, but it is nearly eight years old and referred to Stevens’ work on the Obama administration’s auto task force and her 2018 congressional campaign — not the current Senate primary.

Obama has not publicly endorsed either Stevens or her Democratic opponent, former Michigan health director Abdul El-Sayed, in the Aug. 4 primary. Bridge Michigan reported that Obama has not intervened in the Michigan race and that his only public U.S. Senate endorsement during the 2026 election cycle has been in Texas. 

An endorsement without saying “endorsement”

The advertisements generally stop short of explicitly stating that Obama endorsed Stevens for Senate. Instead, they place footage of Obama alongside messages urging voters to send Stevens to the Senate.

That distinction may protect the advertisers from making a technically false statement, but it does not erase the impression created for voters.

One advertisement reportedly ends with the declaration, “If President Obama trusts her, so do I.”

The obvious objective is to transfer Obama’s popularity and credibility to Stevens without clearly informing viewers that his remarks were recorded during a different election eight years earlier.

Former Obama adviser David Axelrod publicly acknowledged the effect of the advertising. According to Bridge Michigan, Axelrod wrote that Michigan voters seeing the commercial would think Obama had endorsed Stevens, even though he had not. 

Reports from Michigan have documented voters saying they believed Obama was supporting Stevens because they saw him in the advertisements. That confusion is not an accidental side effect. Political commercials are carefully produced, tested and purchased to create specific impressions.

When a popular former president appears on screen praising a candidate while a narrator urges voters to elect that candidate to a different office, many viewers will naturally interpret it as a current endorsement.

Outside groups behind the advertising

The most heavily aired Obama advertisement was financed by United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC.

Because federal law prohibits super PACs from coordinating their spending with candidates, Stevens’ campaign is not legally responsible for creating or distributing United Democracy Project’s advertisements. That separation must be made clear.

However, Stevens has repeatedly promoted her association with the Obama administration and previously used the same Obama footage in campaign material, including the video announcing her Senate campaign. Her campaign also has defended the current ads as an accurate portrayal of Obama’s assessment of her work, while emphasizing that the advertisements never explicitly claim he endorsed her for Senate. 

That defense relies on a narrow technicality.

The controversy is not whether Obama once praised Stevens. He did. The controversy is whether footage from 2018 is being presented in a way designed to make voters believe Obama is backing her in 2026.

The answer is evident from the structure of the advertisements: Obama’s face, Obama’s voice, praise for Stevens and an immediate appeal to elect her to the Senate.

Tens of millions of dollars shaping the race

Outside organizations have poured extraordinary amounts of money into the Michigan Senate contest.

Bridge Michigan reported that United Democracy Project had spent nearly $15 million in the race as of mid-July, including approximately $9.3 million supporting Stevens and $5.7 million opposing El-Sayed. Another super PAC, A Stronger Michigan, reported spending more than $12 million supporting Stevens. 

Overall, roughly $28 million in outside expenditures had either supported Stevens or attacked El-Sayed, according to federal disclosures reviewed by Bridge Michigan. That gave Stevens an enormous advertising advantage and allowed supportive groups to broadcast the Obama footage repeatedly across Michigan’s largest media markets. 

The scale matters. A misleading impression repeated once may be corrected. An impression reinforced thousands of times through television, digital advertising and political mailers can become accepted as fact before many voters learn otherwise.

UAW also accuses pro-Stevens group of misleading voters

The Obama controversy is not the only dispute involving advertisements supporting Stevens.

The United Auto Workers issued a cease-and-desist demand to A Stronger Michigan after a pro-Stevens advertisement displayed the union’s recognizable wheel logo, even though the UAW endorsed El-Sayed.

The union called the advertisements “a deliberate attempt at misleading voters in Michigan,” including active and retired UAW members and their families. The UAW said it would not allow a corporate entity to undermine the union’s member-driven endorsement process. 

The union endorsed El-Sayed after he received the two-thirds vote required through its internal endorsement process. A Stronger Michigan, meanwhile, has spent more than $12 million promoting Stevens. 

As with the Obama footage, the UAW logo appears to capitalize on a trusted institution’s reputation without clearly explaining that the institution is supporting someone else.

Stevens’ legitimate auto-industry record

Stevens has every right to discuss her work in the Obama administration.

She served as chief of staff for the U.S. Auto Rescue Task Force during the financial crisis and helped coordinate between federal officials, automakers, suppliers, dealers and organized labor. Obama genuinely praised her role in that effort.

That history is relevant in Michigan, where the survival of General Motors and Chrysler protected hundreds of thousands of jobs and helped stabilize communities throughout the state.

But highlighting a candidate’s record is different from creating the appearance of a current endorsement.

A straightforward advertisement could tell voters that Stevens worked in the Obama administration and include an on-screen disclosure stating that Obama’s remarks were made in 2018 and that he has not endorsed a candidate in the 2026 Michigan Senate primary.

The groups financing the ads apparently chose not to provide that clarity.

Technically defensible, practically deceptive

Supporters of Stevens argue that the advertisements contain truthful footage. Obama made the comments, Stevens worked on the auto rescue and the advertisements do not use the specific word “endorsement.”

But political deception does not always require an outright lie.

An advertisement can use true statements, selective editing and omitted context to create a conclusion that is not true. In this case, the advertisements encourage voters to believe Obama is participating in the current campaign when he has remained publicly neutral.

The phrase offered by one Stevens supporter — that Obama has “not not endorsed her” — demonstrates the problem. A failure to endorse someone is not a form of endorsement. Silence cannot honestly be converted into support.

Obama either endorsed Stevens in the 2026 Senate primary or he did not.

He did not.

Voters deserve a clear disclosure

Michigan voters should not have to research the date of every video clip to determine whether an endorsement is current, expired or nonexistent.

At minimum, political advertisements using footage from previous elections should prominently disclose when and why the remarks were originally made. A small disclaimer identifying the sponsoring super PAC does not correct the larger visual message.

The issue is bigger than Stevens, Obama or one Democratic primary. Campaign organizations across the political spectrum increasingly use old footage, artificial intelligence, selective editing and institutional imagery to manufacture associations that may not exist.

Those practices weaken informed voting while allowing campaigns and outside groups to retreat behind carefully constructed technical defenses.

Haley Stevens has a legitimate record to present to Michigan voters. Her supporters should be able to make that case without allowing millions of dollars in advertising to create an Obama endorsement that does not exist.

As of July 17, 2026, Barack Obama has not endorsed Haley Stevens, Abdul El-Sayed or any other candidate in Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary.

Anything suggesting otherwise is an impression created by political advertising — not a statement made by the former president.

Michigan Governor's Race Faces Conflict-of-Interest Questions as Rx Kids Program Draws New Scrutiny

LANSING, Mich. — As Michigan's 2026 gubernatorial race intensifies, a growing web of political, financial, and ethical questions is emerging around Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, her husband Ryan Friedrichs, and the rapidly expanding Rx Kids cash assistance program.

While no evidence has established that any laws have been broken, critics argue the circumstances create the appearance of a significant conflict of interest that deserves public scrutiny.

At the center of the controversy is Ryan Friedrichs, Benson's husband, who serves on the Rx Kids Advisory Circle, a leadership body that helps guide fundraising, communications, policy development and strategic growth for the statewide program. His advisory role comes as Benson campaigns to become Michigan's next governor while simultaneously serving as the state's chief election official.

The timing has raised difficult questions.

Rx Kids began as a pilot program in Flint, providing direct cash payments to expectant mothers. What started as a relatively small initiative has since grown into a taxpayer-funded program receiving hundreds of millions of dollars and expanding into Democratic-leaning communities across Michigan.

Critics argue the program's expansion deserves heightened oversight because research associated with the program reported that Rx Kids participants voted at higher rates than comparable residents in the 2024 election.

According to research cited by supporters of the program, Rx Kids enrollees were nearly five percentage points more likely to vote than similar nonparticipants. While increased civic participation is not inherently improper, opponents argue that directing massive taxpayer-funded programs into politically favorable areas while a statewide candidate's spouse helps advise the organization creates an appearance that cannot simply be ignored.

The concern becomes more significant because Benson will oversee election administration while seeking the state's highest office.

Even if every action surrounding Rx Kids complied with the law, ethics experts have long argued that public confidence depends not only on actual fairness but also on avoiding situations that create the appearance of favoritism or political advantage.

The financial structure of the program has generated additional criticism.

Reports indicate that nonprofit partners and administrative organizations collected millions of dollars in management fees while distributing taxpayer-funded benefits. Although state officials have defended those expenses as allowable under grant rules, opponents question whether taxpayers are receiving sufficient accountability for the large sums being spent on administration instead of direct assistance.

Legislative Republicans have also criticized how funding for the program dramatically increased during budget negotiations, arguing that lawmakers received little opportunity to fully examine the expansion before approving hundreds of millions in additional spending.

Meanwhile, the advisory circle itself has become another focal point.

Publicly available information identifies advisors connected to organizations that advocate for guaranteed income programs, progressive political causes, labor activism, immigration policy reforms, voting initiatives and other left-leaning organizations.

Membership on an advisory board does not establish wrongdoing, nor does affiliation with advocacy organizations imply illegal conduct. Nevertheless, critics argue the concentration of politically aligned organizations surrounding a taxpayer-funded program expanding during a gubernatorial election cycle warrants far greater public transparency.

Friedrichs' own background has also drawn attention.

Before joining Related Companies as a vice president, he served in Detroit city government and previously worked as a lobbyist. More recently, he has been involved in efforts supporting a large proposed data center development in Saline Township, another project that has generated significant public controversy.

Taken individually, none of these facts prove corruption.

Collectively, however, opponents argue they present a troubling picture of overlapping political influence, taxpayer funding, election-year expansion and family connections involving one of Michigan's most powerful elected officials.

For many observers, the issue is no longer whether Rx Kids helps families.

The larger question is whether a statewide elected official should be allowed to seek higher office while her spouse serves in a leadership role for a taxpayer-funded program whose expansion could indirectly influence political participation in communities likely to support that candidate.

Those questions become even more important because public trust in elections depends upon citizens believing government programs are administered solely for public benefit—not for potential political gain.

As the 2026 campaign continues, lawmakers may face increasing pressure to examine the program's governance, financial oversight, advisory structure and safeguards against conflicts of interest.

Regardless of the outcome, Michigan voters deserve complete transparency regarding how taxpayer dollars are spent, who influences those decisions, and whether sufficient ethical protections exist to preserve public confidence in both government spending and the state's electoral process.