A Campaign Built on Lies? Haley Stevens' Record of Controversial Attack Ads Faces Growing Scrutiny

 

As Michigan's Democratic Senate primary enters its final stretch, Rep. Haley Stevens has increasingly centered her campaign on portraying opponent Dr. Abdul El-Sayed as outside the mainstream.

But critics argue the real issue isn't Abdul El-Sayed's record.

It's Haley Stevens' willingness to distort it.

Throughout the campaign, Stevens and the outside groups supporting her have repeatedly been accused of using selective editing, misleading advertising, and questionable political messaging that critics say is designed to leave voters with impressions unsupported by the full facts.

The Michelle Obama Attack

One of Stevens' latest attacks claims Abdul El-Sayed called Michelle Obama "ineffectual," suggesting the statement reflects disrespect toward the former First Lady and portraying it as evidence of sexism.

That accusation falls apart when the complete context is examined.

In his 2010 Guardian article, El-Sayed wasn't evaluating Michelle Obama as a person.

He was evaluating the effectiveness of her "Let's Move!" childhood obesity initiative.

He described the program as "commendable, if ineffectual."

Those two words are often omitted from Stevens' messaging.

"Commendable" was praise.

"Ineffectual" was criticism of a public policy strategy—not of Michelle Obama herself.

El-Sayed argued that childhood obesity cannot be solved simply by encouraging healthier choices while ignoring deeper societal causes such as:

• Food deserts

• Poverty

• Neighborhood design

• Unequal access to nutritious food

Whether voters agree with that analysis is beside the point.

It was a policy critique—not a personal attack. Recasting a debate over public health into an accusation of sexism changes the meaning of the original statement.

Not the First Time Questions Have Been Raised

This isn't the first controversy surrounding Stevens' campaign messaging.

The Obama Advertisement

Earlier this campaign, television advertisements featured Barack Obama praising Stevens.

The problem?

Obama has not endorsed anyone in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary.

The advertisement used archival footage of Obama praising Stevens for her work during the auto industry rescue years ago. Critics argued the presentation could lead viewers to believe Obama currently endorsed her Senate campaign when he has remained neutral in the race.

UAW Dispute

Stevens' campaign also faced controversy over campaign materials involving the United Auto Workers.

The dispute became significant enough that the UAW challenged the use of its branding, fueling accusations that campaign messaging blurred the line between actual union support and perceived endorsement.

Millions in Outside Spending

Outside organizations supporting Stevens have spent tens of millions of dollars boosting her candidacy, with significant support from pro-Israel political organizations.

That funding has become one of the defining issues in the race, particularly among progressive Democrats and many Arab American voters.

El-Sayed has repeatedly argued that such massive outside spending raises questions about who a candidate will ultimately answer to once elected.

Stevens rejects those criticisms, but the enormous amount of outside money has become one of the defining issues of the Democratic primary.

A Campaign Focused More on Character Than Policy?

Rather than debating healthcare, manufacturing, wages, housing costs, or Michigan's economy, Stevens' campaign has increasingly relied on portraying El-Sayed as personally flawed.

Critics argue that this strategy depends on selective quotations and incomplete context rather than engaging his policy positions directly.

When a campaign removes the context surrounding a 15-year-old public-health article to imply sexism, voters have every reason to ask whether they are seeing an honest representation of an opponent's record—or simply an effective political attack.

The Bottom Line

Negative campaigning is nothing new.

Every election features sharp contrasts and hard-hitting advertisements.

But there is an important distinction between highlighting an opponent's record and changing the context of that record.

The debate over Abdul El-Sayed's 2010 article demonstrates why context matters. Reading the original article shows a discussion about public-health policy—not a personal attack on Michelle Obama. Likewise, Stevens' campaign has faced criticism over advertisements and messaging that opponents argue leave voters with misleading impressions.

Ultimately, Michigan voters must decide whether campaigns should win by debating ideas and policy—or by framing an opponent's words in ways that critics argue omit the context necessary for voters to make a fully informed decision.

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.

AIPAC-Linked Super PAC Drops $2.3 Million Into Michigan Senate Race, Intensifying Debate Over Israel and Outside Influence

 

LANSING, Mich. — A major pro-Israel political action committee has entered Michigan's Democratic U.S. Senate primary with a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign supporting U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, injecting new energy into one of the race's most contentious issues: Israel, foreign policy, and the role of outside money in elections.

According to campaign filings, the United Democracy Project (UDP), the super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has reserved approximately $2.33 million in television and digital advertising across Michigan to boost Stevens' Senate campaign.

The ad buy includes more than $2.2 million in airtime reservations across the Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Traverse City markets, along with additional spending on CNN, MNOW, and satellite television networks.

Interestingly, the advertisements make no mention of Israel or Middle East policy. Instead, they highlight Stevens' work supporting Michigan's auto industry, protecting manufacturing jobs, and fighting against cuts to Medicare. One portion of the ad features former President Barack Obama praising Stevens' efforts to help save auto jobs during the industry crisis.

Nevertheless, the source of the spending has reignited a political debate that has become increasingly important in Democratic politics, particularly in Michigan, home to one of the nation's largest Arab American populations and a significant Jewish community.

Stevens' chief Democratic rival, former gubernatorial candidate and public health expert Abdul El-Sayed, wasted little time criticizing the move.

"A super PAC focused on sending our taxpayer dollars abroad is coming in to try and buy the race for a candidate who is going to do their bidding," El-Sayed said.

He argued that voters should focus on domestic priorities such as healthcare, education, roads, and bridges rather than organizations advocating for foreign policy interests.

"If you want your money spent on your health care in Michigan, your schools in Michigan, your roads and bridges in Michigan, then it'd be worth rethinking whether or not you're going to pay attention to what United Democracy Project and AIPAC think you should do," he said.

The spending also places a spotlight on the differing positions of the Democratic field.

Stevens has long been viewed as one of the more openly pro-Israel Democrats in Michigan's congressional delegation. While she has expressed concern about civilian casualties in Gaza and supported humanitarian assistance, she has consistently backed the U.S.-Israel alliance and military support for Israel.

El-Sayed, by contrast, has emerged as one of the state's most outspoken critics of Israeli policy. His calls for significant changes in U.S. policy toward Israel have earned him strong support among many progressives, younger voters, and Arab Americans who have been deeply critical of Israel's conduct during the Gaza war.

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow has attempted to occupy a middle ground between the two candidates. McMorrow has voiced support for Israel's right to exist and defend itself and has condemned antisemitism, while also expressing concerns about civilian suffering in Gaza. At the same time, she has sought to distance herself from outside political spending, arguing that Michigan voters—not national organizations and super PACs—should determine the outcome of the Senate race.

That position has allowed McMorrow to appeal to some Democrats uncomfortable with both El-Sayed's sharp criticism of Israel and the growing influence of outside groups such as AIPAC in Democratic primaries.

The issue has become particularly sensitive within progressive Democratic circles.

For years, AIPAC was largely viewed as a mainstream bipartisan lobbying organization. Today, however, it has become a lightning rod among many progressives who view the group's spending as an attempt to suppress criticism of Israel within the Democratic Party.

At the same time, many Jewish Democrats in Metro Detroit find themselves navigating a complicated political landscape. Some strongly support Israel's existence and security while also opposing the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Others worry that increasingly hostile rhetoric toward Israel risks alienating Jewish voters who remain committed to a two-state solution but reject accusations that Israel's very existence is illegitimate.

Political observers say those tensions could create challenges regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination.

If Stevens secures the nomination with significant support from AIPAC-affiliated spending, some progressive voters could become disillusioned and choose not to participate in the general election. Conversely, if El-Sayed captures the nomination, some moderate Democrats and pro-Israel voters could find themselves weighing whether to support Republican candidate Mike Rogers or abstain from the race altogether.

McMorrow's supporters argue that her candidacy offers a potential bridge between those factions, though whether that message can gain traction in an increasingly polarized political environment remains to be seen.

What is clear is that the Michigan Senate race is evolving into more than a contest between individual candidates. It has become a broader battle over the Democratic Party's future, the influence of outside money, America's relationship with Israel, and the priorities voters want their next senator to pursue.

With millions of dollars already being spent and national political organizations increasingly focused on Michigan, those debates are likely to intensify in the months ahead as voters decide who will advance to the general election and potentially represent Michigan in the United States Senate for years to come.

Questions Grow Over Outside Influence in Michigan Senate Race as Pro-Israel Group Quietly Boosts Haley Stevens

 

A growing controversy surrounding U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens’ Democratic Senate campaign is fueling accusations that powerful outside political organizations are attempting to quietly shape Michigan’s Senate primary while avoiding full public scrutiny.

At the center of the storm is the growing role of pro-Israel political networks and affiliated donors tied to Stevens’ campaign fundraising operation.

According to an analysis by The Detroit News, a substantial portion of Stevens’ donor base appears connected to fundraising channels associated with major pro-Israel political interests, even though many of those organizations do not prominently appear in campaign branding or public messaging.

Critics say the strategy reflects a modern political playbook increasingly common in Washington: use legally separate PACs, donor networks, bundled contributions, and affiliated fundraising operations to maximize political influence while minimizing public visibility.

The issue is not necessarily whether laws were broken.

The issue is whether voters are being fully informed about who is attempting to buy influence in one of the nation’s most important Senate races.

Stevens has long positioned herself as one of the Democratic Party’s strongest pro-Israel voices in Congress. That alignment has made her a favored candidate among influential pro-Israel political organizations and donor circles that have aggressively intervened in Democratic primaries nationwide.

Those groups have spent millions in recent election cycles targeting progressive Democrats viewed as insufficiently supportive of Israel or critical of Israeli government policy.

Now, many Michigan Democrats are beginning to ask whether outside political money is attempting to override the priorities of local voters.

The controversy intensified after reports revealed fundraising operations connected to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, were helping elevate Stevens’ candidacy while simultaneously attacking progressive Democratic rivals.

For critics, the situation exposes what they view as one of the most corrosive realities in modern American politics: wealthy special-interest groups can flood elections with money while operating through complex financial structures that average voters rarely understand.

The result is a system where influence can be quietly purchased without voters fully realizing who is behind the campaign machinery until after ballots are cast.

Progressives argue this is exactly how modern political influence works.

Rather than direct, obvious corruption, today’s system often revolves around layered PAC structures, strategic donor bundling, coordinated independent expenditures, and disclosure timelines designed to keep controversial financial relationships out of headlines during the most critical stages of an election.

Legally, campaigns can claim separation.

Politically, the networks still function with remarkable efficiency.

That growing frustration is especially pronounced among Democratic voters angry over the war in Gaza and increasingly skeptical of large pro-Israel lobbying organizations exerting influence over Democratic primaries.

Michigan has become one of the clearest battlegrounds in that larger Democratic civil war.

Stevens’ critics argue her campaign is becoming a case study in how outside influence groups attempt to reshape Democratic politics from the top down, using money and institutional power to marginalize grassroots candidates.

Supporters of Stevens reject those criticisms, arguing that pro-Israel voters and advocacy organizations have every right to support candidates who reflect their views.

But opponents counter that the real issue is transparency.

Voters deserve to know who is financing campaigns, who is coordinating political pressure, and whether outside interests are attempting to dominate local elections through carefully engineered loopholes.

The controversy also reflects a broader national concern about the explosion of PAC money after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited outside political spending.

Since then, both parties have increasingly relied on networks of wealthy donors, super PACs, nonprofit organizations, and issue-based political groups capable of pouring enormous sums into elections with limited immediate disclosure requirements.

Critics argue the Stevens controversy is not an isolated incident.

They argue it is the system functioning exactly as Washington designed it.

And for many frustrated Michigan voters, that may be the most alarming part of all.

Independent candidate Cooper Nye aims to unite a divided 11th congressional district

COULD COOPER NYE BE A DARK HORSE THAT COULD WIN MICHIGAN'S 11TH DISTRICT?

I love Michigan. I love this country. And I love fighting
 for that silent, sensible majority that's sick and tired of
Democrats and Republicans. —  Cooper Nye 

Michigan’s Secretary of State has confirmed that 26-year-old Cooper Nye, a reform-focused independent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives (MI-11) -that actually lives in the District, will appear on the general election ballot this November. Without party affiliation, Nye’s campaign was required by state ballot access rules to file at least 3,000 valid petition signatures—three times the number required for major party candidates. For Nye, it was the first of many hurdles in an electoral process that he claims is rigged by Democrats and Republicans to discourage political competition.

“Getting on the ballot wasn’t easy,” said Cooper Nye, an independent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives (MI-11). “But the stories and concerns that voters have shared reaffirmed my belief that an incredible shift is happening, not just in Michigan, but in this country. And that’s what’s fueling my campaign.”

“There is a silent, sensible majority that’s tired of the two-party duopoly,” he went on to say. “Americans are sick of the polarization ripping us apart. And they’re ready to unite and disrupt this broken system that serves special interest instead of citizens.”

Cooper Nye of Commerce Township says he’s the youngest candidate this year running for U.S. House in Michigan.

The 26-year-old independent candidate made it onto the general election ballot this fall after submitting 4,000 signatures to the state — 3,000 are required under state law for non-affiliated candidates.

He is running against Lena Epstein of Bloomfield Township which is in the 9th District and Haley Stevens of Rochester Hills which is primarily in the 8th District.  Cooper Nye resides in Novi in Michigan's 11th district.  Nye, Epstien and Stevens are all running for the open seat vacated by current 2 term congressman David Trott in the 11th District. The contest is rated a toss-up by several political analysts.

“There is a silent, sensible majority that’s tired of the two-party duopoly,” Nye said in a statement.

“Americans are sick of the polarization ripping us apart. And they’re ready to unite and disrupt this broken system that serves special interest instead of citizens.” as he states in his video commerical below.



Nye grew up in Novi and attended Walled Lake Western High School and Michigan State University. He moved to Washington, D.C., after graduation, worked in public relations for three years and “found first-hand why some call D.C. ‘Hollywood for Ugly People,'” he says on his campaign website.

Cooper Nye stated, on the news talk show "Tough Talk with Taros", hosted by Paul Taros, "My priority is passing the American Anti-Corruption Act because Congress should be busy solving problems and serving citizens--not special interests."  You can see his vision and plan in the clip form the interview with Paul Taros below.




If you would like to know more about Cooper Nye you can visit his website CoopForCongress.com