Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has drawn a sharp public line inside her own party over Israel, calling past comments by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed wrong and saying they do not represent Democrats in Congress. The remarks, reported on October 30, 2026, came just days before the November 3 midterm elections, at a moment when Democrats are trying to present a united front in races that could decide control of the Senate and the House.
Pelosi delivered the criticism on Thursday during an appearance on Donny Deutsch’s On Brand podcast. Deutsch, who is Jewish, pressed the longtime California Democrat about growing concern among Jewish Americans over antisemitism within the party, and about how Jewish voters could continue to support Democrats when prominent members of the party have declined to affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. It was in response to that line of questioning that Pelosi named Mamdani and El-Sayed and rejected their positions in unusually blunt terms.
According to reporting on the exchange, Deutsch told Pelosi that denying Israel’s right to be a Jewish state was, in his view, antisemitic. When Deutsch pointed to Mamdani and El-Sayed as examples, Pelosi replied that their views were more than concerning. She said, in the words reported by multiple outlets, that they were wrong, and that they were not a reflection of the Democrats in the Congress of the United States. She added that the voters in Michigan would decide whether El-Sayed, whom she described as a new person in that state, would be elected to Congress.
Pelosi also sought to separate the two men from the House Democratic caucus she once led. She said that if a member of the House spoke in those terms, other members would disassociate themselves from it. On Mamdani, she struck a more personal note, saying she hoped he succeeded as mayor while making clear she did not agree with some of the things he has said. The combination, a firm rejection of the views alongside a wish for Mamdani’s success in office, captured the balancing act Pelosi was attempting: criticise the positions without appearing to abandon the politicians or the voters who support them.
Nancy Pelosi, Mamdani and El-Sayed: The Israel Exchange That Shook Democrats
The context of the exchange matters to understanding why it drew attention. Deutsch framed his question not as an abstract debate about foreign policy, but as a question about belonging: how, he asked in effect, could a Jewish Democrat keep faith with a party that elevates politicians whose statements he regards as antisemitic. Pelosi’s answer tried to answer that question in two parts. First, she defended the congressional party, saying she did not know of anyone among congressional Democrats who was engaged in antisemitism, while allowing that there might be a few whose comments could be interpreted that way. Second, she singled out Mamdani and El-Sayed as falling outside that congressional consensus.
That distinction is important, and it is also contested. Supporters of Mamdani and El-Sayed argue that their positions are about equal rights and about opposing the privileging of one religion in the definition of a state, not about denying Israel’s existence or about hostility toward Jewish people. Critics, including Deutsch in the podcast exchange, argue that refusing to affirm Israel as a Jewish state amounts, in practice, to denying a core element of its identity, and they describe that refusal as antisemitic. Pelosi’s own words on the podcast landed closer to the critics on the substance of the two men’s comments, while stopping short of applying Deutsch’s broader characterisation to the Democratic Party as a whole.
The episode also illustrates how a single podcast appearance can become a campaign event in the final days of an election. Clips and quotations from the conversation circulated quickly, and reporting on them framed the story as a sign of division within the Democratic coalition. That framing is itself a matter of interpretation: one party figure criticising two others does not, by itself, prove a party-wide split, but in a close election, even a well-publicised disagreement can be used by opponents and can complicate efforts to mobilise voters who are already uneasy about the party’s direction.
What Mamdani Said in June
Mamdani, a democratic socialist who now serves as mayor of New York City, has faced repeated questions about whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. In a June interview with ABC News, he said he supported Israel existing as a state with equal rights, but he declined to endorse its Jewish character. Reporting on that interview quotes him as saying that he could not support any state that privileges one religion over another, whether that state was Israel, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else.
That formulation is the heart of the dispute. For Mamdani and his supporters, the emphasis is on equal rights for all residents, and the refusal to endorse a Jewish state is presented as a principled position about religious equality in the definition of a state. For his critics, the refusal is presented as a failure to affirm Israel’s identity and, by extension, as a position that leaves Jewish self-determination unrecognised. Both characterisations are attributed claims about the meaning of his words, and they reflect a genuine disagreement about what the words imply, not merely a disagreement about the words themselves.
Pelosi’s comment on Mamdani on the podcast did not engage in detail with that argument. She said she hoped he succeeded as mayor, a remark that in context read as an effort to wish well to a fellow Democrat in office while disagreeing with him on this issue. She did not say she would withdraw support from him or campaign against him, and there is no indication in the reporting that she proposed any formal sanction. The criticism was political and rhetorical, not procedural, and its significance lies mainly in who said it: a former Speaker with decades of experience managing Democratic divisions, speaking in the final days of a national election.
What El-Sayed Said in May
El-Sayed’s case is different, because he is not an incumbent mayor but a candidate in one of the Senate races that could decide the majority. In a May appearance with Jewish supporters, he repeatedly declined to affirm that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. Reporting on that appearance says he said he struggled with the question and suggested that the idea of a Jewish state did not line up with the liberal values that, in his phrasing, Americans say they believe in at home.
As with Mamdani, El-Sayed’s supporters present that answer as an argument about equal rights and liberal democratic principles. His critics present it as an evasion of a straightforward question about Israel’s identity, and as a position that is inconsistent with the mainstream Democratic stance on the US-Israel relationship. The May appearance has therefore remained a reference point throughout the general election campaign, raised by opponents and by journalists, and now, in the final week, by Pelosi herself.
The timing of Pelosi’s intervention is particularly sensitive for El-Sayed because Michigan is a swing state and the Senate race there is close. El-Sayed faces Republican Mike Rogers, and the outcome could help determine which party controls the Senate after November 3. In that context, a prominent Democrat calling a candidate’s views wrong, even while her office urges voters to support him, creates a complicated message for voters: a criticism of the candidate’s past comments, paired with an endorsement of his candidacy. How voters weigh those two signals, and whether they hear the criticism or the endorsement more loudly, is an open question that the campaign itself will have to navigate in its final days.
Pelosi’s Office Still Urges Support for El-Sayed
The clearest evidence that Pelosi’s criticism was not intended as a withdrawal of support came the day after the podcast. Nicholas Martin, a spokesperson for Pelosi, told the New York Post on Friday that Pelosi still urged everyone in Michigan and across America to support Abdul El-Sayed. That clarification, reported alongside the original exchange, is essential to a fair account of the story. Without it, readers might reasonably conclude that Pelosi had abandoned the Democratic nominee in a pivotal race. With it, the picture is more nuanced: disagreement on a specific issue, combined with continued backing for the candidate in the election itself.
That nuance is common in party politics, where senior figures often disagree with nominees on particular policies while still campaigning for them against the opposing party. It is also a source of frustration for voters who want a simpler signal. Supporters of El-Sayed may welcome the endorsement while resenting the criticism, particularly so close to Election Day. Critics of El-Sayed may welcome the criticism while questioning why it is paired with an endorsement. Both reactions were visible in the coverage that followed, and both reflect the difficulty of holding a broad coalition together on an issue as emotive as Israel.
It is also worth noting what Pelosi did not do. She did not, in the reporting on the podcast, call either man antisemitic in her own words. That characterisation came from Deutsch, who said that denying Israel’s right to be a Jewish state was antisemitic as far as he was concerned. Pelosi’s own characterisation was that the views were wrong and did not reflect congressional Democrats. Keeping that distinction clear matters, because attributing Deutsch’s label to Pelosi would misrepresent what she said, just as attributing Pelosi’s criticism to the whole Democratic Party would misrepresent its scope.
Michigan Unity Effort and the Stevens Factor
The Michigan dimension of the story extends beyond El-Sayed himself. He narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, a contest that left lingering tensions among some of the party’s constituencies. Stevens has since endorsed him, and reporting on the final days of the campaign said she had urged him to address concerns surrounding his rhetoric about Israel. At the time of the New York Post report, Stevens and El-Sayed were scheduled to make a joint campaign appearance in Detroit on Sunday alongside Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, in a last-minute effort to consolidate Democratic support before Election Day.
That planned appearance was presented as a unity event, and its significance lay in who was involved. Clyburn is one of the most influential Black leaders in the Democratic Party, and his presence was intended to help broaden El-Sayed’s coalition, particularly among Black voters in Detroit and Wayne County, where Stevens had performed strongly in the primary. A joint appearance by a former primary rival, a senior party figure and the nominee is a classic closing-week signal: whatever the divisions of the primary, the party is now behind its nominee.
Whether such signals work depends on more than the photograph. Voters who were uneasy about El-Sayed’s past comments may need more than a shared stage to be reassured, and voters who supported Stevens in the primary may need evidence that their concerns have been heard, not merely that a unity event has been held. Campaigns in this position often try to do both at once: show unity in public while addressing the underlying concerns in private conversations with community leaders and in targeted messaging. The Pelosi podcast, arriving in the same week as the planned Detroit appearance, complicated that effort by putting the underlying disagreement back into public view.
Why the Dispute Matters Before the Midterms
The broader reason this story matters is that it touches on a fault line that has run through the Democratic Party for several years, over Israel, the war in Gaza, and the language used to describe Israel’s identity and policies. That fault line does not map neatly onto a simple left-versus-centre divide, and it involves voters across religious, ethnic and generational lines. Jewish Democrats, Muslim Democrats, Arab American voters in Michigan, younger progressive voters and older establishment Democrats may all hear the same sentence about a Jewish state and draw different conclusions about what it means and why it matters.
For Democrats seeking to hold together before the midterms, the challenge is to keep that coalition intact without forcing every candidate to adopt identical language on an issue where voters themselves disagree. Pelosi’s approach on the podcast, criticise the specific views, defend the congressional party, and still endorse the candidate, is one attempt at that balancing act. Whether it succeeds will be judged not by the commentary that follows a podcast, but by turnout and results in Michigan and in other close races, and by whether voters who were concerned about the party’s direction feel heard or feel lectured to.
Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to use the exchange in their own closing arguments, presenting it as evidence of division and as a reason for voters uneasy about the Democratic Party’s direction to vote the other way. That is a normal campaign tactic, and it does not require accepting either side’s characterisation of Mamdani’s or El-Sayed’s views. Readers should treat campaign uses of the exchange as campaign arguments, distinct from the reporting of what was actually said, and should weigh them accordingly.
What to Watch Next
In the remaining days before November 3, three things are worth watching. First, whether the planned Detroit appearance with Stevens and Clyburn goes ahead as described and how it is received by voters in Michigan, particularly in communities that were divided during the primary. Second, whether Pelosi, Mamdani or El-Sayed say anything further on the issue, and whether any further comments clarify or harden the positions already stated. Third, whether the dispute affects turnout or vote choice in Michigan in a measurable way, something that will only become clear after the election, when analysts can compare results with past voting patterns and with polling in the final week.
None of those developments will, by themselves, settle the underlying disagreement about Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, about equal rights, or about the language that best describes either. That disagreement predates this campaign and will outlast it, whatever the result in Michigan. What the Pelosi podcast has done is to bring it into the open, in the voice of one of the party’s most experienced figures, at the moment when the party most needs unity. That tension, between candour and cohesion, is the real story of the final days, and it will still be there after the votes are counted.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from New York Post, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.