Abdul El-Sayed’s Medical Credentials Don’t Match His Whole A– Campaign Promises

There’s something almost poetic about a politician who never held a medical license in the states where he worked lecturing Americans about trusting doctors. Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic Senate candidate, spent Friday at Michigan State University dropping profanity-laced defenses of sex changes for children while waving around credentials that don’t quite add up.

The former Detroit Health Department head responded to a student question about protecting these procedures by emphasizing his medical training. “I went to a whole a– medical school,” El-Sayed declared, in case anyone missed his point about being qualified. He went on to explain that his classmates also attended “whole a– medical school” and completed “whole a– residency” before taking “whole a– exams” to provide “whole a– healthcare.” The repetition was apparently necessary to hammer home his expertise.

Here’s what makes this performance fascinating. El-Sayed has built his entire campaign around being a physician, promising voters he’d be the first doctor to serve as a Democratic senator in half a century. It’s his calling card, his brand, the thing that supposedly sets him apart. But records show he’s never held a medical license in Michigan or New York, the two states where he’s worked in public health roles.

You know what this reminds me of? Every time someone tells you to trust the experts while simultaneously proving they’re not quite the expert they claimed to be. It’s not that El-Sayed lacks education or intelligence. He clearly went to medical school. But there’s a canyon of difference between completing training and actually practicing medicine, between holding theoretical knowledge and making real clinical decisions for real patients.

El-Sayed’s argument boils down to this: medical decisions should stay between patients, parents when kids are involved, and doctors. The government shouldn’t interfere. “I don’t think the government gets to have a say about what healthcare is provided in what circumstances and why,” he said. That’s his standard for healthcare decisions.

Now let’s pause here because the contradiction deserves attention. El-Sayed’s signature campaign promise is Medicare for All, a complete government takeover of healthcare. The same government he insists should pay everyone’s medical bills somehow shouldn’t have any say in what treatments those bills cover. This is the kind of logic that only makes sense if you don’t think about it too hard.

The Trump administration has been moving aggressively to restrict minors’ access to what they call “sex-rejecting” procedures. Major hospitals like Mount Sinai, Texas Children’s Hospital, Cleveland Clinic, and Connecticut Children’s have all agreed to halt these procedures for kids. The Justice Department brokered these agreements, and Medicaid has ended funding for child sex change treatments, calling them experimental.

El-Sayed dismisses concerns as “disinformation” about reproductive rights and healthcare for trans folks. But parents across America are asking reasonable questions about permanent medical interventions for children who can’t legally vote, drink, or sign contracts. These aren’t bigots or extremists. They’re people who remember when medicine moved cautiously with children’s bodies, when “first, do no harm” meant something concrete.

The defense of absolute medical autonomy sounds compelling until you remember medicine has guardrails for a reason. We don’t let doctors prescribe whatever they want without oversight. We have medical boards, licensing requirements, standards of care, and yes, regulations. These exist because doctors are human and humans make mistakes, follow trends, and sometimes prioritize ideology over evidence.

What’s really happening here is a Senate candidate leveraging questionable credentials to shut down debate on one of the most contentious medical issues of our time. He’s using professional authority he arguably doesn’t possess to argue that questioning these procedures is somehow anti-science or anti-medicine. It’s a neat trick if you can pull it off.

Traditional conservative values recognize that parents have primary authority over their children’s welfare, but that authority comes with responsibility to protect kids from irreversible harm. Limited government doesn’t mean no standards whatsoever. It means government should protect the vulnerable while respecting freedom, not funding experimental treatments on children with taxpayer money while claiming no oversight role.

The rubber meets the road, as El-Sayed started to say before his quote got cut off, when theory confronts reality. And the reality is Americans are watching their tax dollars fund procedures that many find deeply troubling while being told they have no right to object because doctors know best. Even doctors who never practiced.

Related: Massachusetts Judge Gets Slap on the Wrist for Helping Illegal Immigrant Dodge ICE