As the United States approaches the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a new video report by filmmaker Ami Horowitz for Daily Wire highlights a divergence in public memory and moral interpretation of the events that killed nearly 3,000 people. Horowitz conducted interviews in Manhattan’s East Village, where a segment of respondents expressed sympathy for the perpetrators or justified the attacks as a consequence of American foreign policy. The findings have intensified a broader political debate regarding the progressive left’s stance on national security and historical accountability, coinciding with scrutiny of Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators and Daily Wire staff characterize these responses as a rejection of shared national memory and a moral inversion of the attacks. Horowitz stated that among those interviewed, “two-thirds agreed that we deserved 9/11,” describing this as a “disturbing anniversary message.” The report frames these views as part of a broader trend among some progressives to question the official narrative of 9/11 and its aftermath.
This scrutiny extends to political figures such as Abdul El-Sayed, the Michigan Democratic Senate nominee. El-Sayed has faced criticism for his association with Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who previously stated that “America deserved 9/11.” Although Piker later walked back the remark, El-Sayed has declined to sever ties with him. Critics point to El-Sayed’s appearance at the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention alongside Cenk Uygur and Zaid Shakir, both of whom have publicly questioned aspects of the official 9/11 account. El-Sayed has stated he unequivocally condemns the attacks.
What the Left Is Saying
In the Daily Wire report, several New York residents interviewed by Horowitz articulated views that reframe the 9/11 attacks through the lens of geopolitical retaliation. When asked if the attacks were terrorism, one respondent stated, “I think it was like an act of war,” and when pressed on whether the perpetrators could be considered “freedom fighters,” answered, “Yeah.” Another individual argued that “it’s good to act on violence if there’s no other solution.”
Multiple interviewees endorsed the sentiment that the United States “deserved” the attacks. “If you’re being totally honest,” Horowitz asked one person, “we deserved it?” The respondent replied, “I would say that, yeah. To be completely honest, yeah.” Another stated, “The amount of atrocities the U.S. has committed, had, or has directly contributed to. Yeah, we deserve it.” Some respondents suggested that further violence or revolution might be necessary for political change, with one invoking the French Revolution’s violence as a potential model for American action.
What the Numbers Show
The September 11 attacks resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, a figure frequently cited in both the Daily Wire interviews and the political debates surrounding the anniversary. Horowitz’s report claims that two-thirds of his interviewees agreed with the statement that the U.S. “deserved” the attacks.
In August, CBS News reported on social media posts by El-Sayed that were subsequently deleted. In a 2021 post, El-Sayed compared the response to the September 11 attacks with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, contrasting the nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11 with the higher number of deaths resulting from the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. El-Sayed has maintained that his comparisons were intended to critique policy responses rather than justify the initial attacks.
The Bottom Line
The divergence in interpretations of 9/11 highlights a growing cultural and political divide as the 25th anniversary approaches. While mainstream American consensus views the attacks as an unprovoked act of terrorism and a national tragedy, segments of the progressive movement, as depicted in Horowitz’s interviews, view the events through a framework of historical retribution and foreign policy consequence. This debate impacts electoral politics, as seen in the scrutiny of candidates like Abdul El-Sayed, who must navigate associations with figures who have questioned the official narrative or justified the attacks’ morality. The coming weeks will likely see continued discussion on how historical memory shapes contemporary political alignment and voter perception.