Donald Trump stood inside a Las Vegas casino and unleashed a furious attack on Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

He accused El-Sayed of hating Jewish people, called him dangerous and used an expletive to dismiss him.

Then Trump invoked Pearl Harbor, two world wars and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The comparison was so inflammatory that one New York commentator issued the president a direct challenge:

Come to Manhattan on the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and say it again.

“Mr. President, if you’re listening this morning, I dare you to come to New York City on Sept. 11th,” MS NOW contributor Mike Barnicle said, staring into the camera.

“Repeat what you just said here in Manhattan,” he continued. “You’ll realize that you were wrong.”

The confrontation followed Trump’s Wednesday speech at the Red Rock Casino Resort Spa, where he turned his attention to El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.

“This guy hates Jews,” Trump declared. “He hates Jews and hates Israel.”

Trump offered no evidence in the quoted remarks to support the accusation.

Criticism of Israel or its government is not automatically hatred of Jewish people, and political disagreement cannot responsibly be transformed into an allegation of antisemitism without examining the specific statements or conduct involved.

Trump nevertheless continued.

“He’s a man of hate, and now he’s going around saying, ‘Oh, I love everybody,’” the president said. “He doesn’t love everybody. Put him in office, and you’re going to find out what he loves.”

The rhetoric escalated from a personal attack into an apocalyptic warning.

“These people are dangerous, and frankly, they are lunatics,” Trump said. “They’re crazy, and we can’t let them get into office.”

He then described communism as the greatest threat the United States has faced in its history—including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

Trump concluded his attack on El-Sayed with a profanity.

“Abdul, he’s full of s—,” the president said.

The following morning, the “Morning Joe” panel reacted with disbelief.

Co-host Willie Geist interpreted Trump’s comments as effectively suggesting that the election of candidates such as El-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani represented a greater calamity than 9/11.

Trump’s literal wording was somewhat different: He explicitly identified “communism,” not El-Sayed’s primary victory itself, as the greater historical threat.

But the comments came in the middle of a denunciation of El-Sayed and other progressive candidates, allowing panelists to argue that Trump had deliberately connected their electoral success with some of the deadliest events in American history.

“Just pause,” Geist said.

Jonathan Lemire called the speech both “obscene” and “inaccurate.”

His objection was intensified by the approaching anniversary.

September 11, 2026, will mark 25 years since hijacked aircraft struck the World Trade Center and Pentagon, while another plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people were killed, and the attack reshaped American life, foreign policy and national security for a generation.

For New Yorkers who witnessed the destruction or lost relatives, friends and colleagues, 9/11 is not an abstract metaphor for an unfavorable election result.

That is why Barnicle’s challenge was so pointed.

He was not merely asking Trump to visit New York. He was daring the president to stand in the city that still bears the emotional scars of the attack and repeat a political comparison delivered to an applauding casino crowd thousands of miles away.

Trump’s defenders may argue that he was warning broadly about an ideology, not minimizing the victims of terrorism. Presidents routinely compare political movements with historical dangers, and Trump is especially known for using extreme language to intensify campaign stakes.

But the scale of the comparison matters.

World War II killed tens of millions of people. Pearl Harbor brought the United States into that conflict. The September 11 attacks produced the deadliest terrorist assault in American history.

Invoking those events to attack domestic political opponents risks turning national trauma into a partisan prop.

The attack also raises another question.

El-Sayed is Muslim, and Trump paired an unsupported claim that he hates Jews with warnings that he is dangerous, hateful and secretly concealing what he truly believes.

That rhetorical pattern can encourage voters to view a candidate’s identity as evidence of hidden disloyalty.

Trump could have challenged El-Sayed’s policies, record or ideology.

Instead, he accused him of hatred, invoked America’s greatest tragedies and ended with an expletive.

Now a New Yorker has offered the president a simple test.

Return to Manhattan on September 11.

Stand among the families and survivors.

Then say it again.