The NPR Politics Podcast - Campaign messaging, concerts & Can't Let It Go

Episode Date: September 18, 2026

Some Republican candidates are using inflammatory and anti-Muslim rhetoric in their campaign ads and public statements. We look at what they're saying, and why they're saying it.Then, a free speech controversy made its way to the music world. After making pro-Palestinian statements during recent concerts, rapper Macklemore was removed from shows opening for Ed Sheeran. We explain what's going on.And, as usual on Fridays: Can't Let It Go.This episode: White House correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben, senior national political correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional correspondent Barbara Sprunt, and music reporter Isabella Gomez Sarmiento.This podcast was produced and edited by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include bonus episodes and sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

If you take a listen to some Republican campaign messaging this election cycle, you might hear something that feels like a bit of a throwback, namely anti-Muslim messaging and a lot of it. So why is it making a comeback now and what are other politicians saying about it? It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House. I'm Barbara Sprint. I cover Congress. And I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics. And we are taping this podcast on Friday, September 18th at 1230. 35 p.m. Eastern time. So, Barbara, you have been looking into this kind of Republican messaging I mentioned on the midterm campaign trail. What has stood out to you? Yeah, two things. The rhetoric from some politicians and then the ads themselves on state level, local level. Let's start maybe with the rhetoric. Sure. I spoke with folks at the Center for the Study of Organized Hate. And they actually did some like data digging in this. And they found that after Abdullah Al-Said won his primary in Michigan,

and after Zarmam Dani won his election in New York City for the mayor's race, anti-Muslim rhetoric skyrocketed among GOP politicians. And we have seen this. Like probably a lot of us have seen some of these tweets. I mean, there's one from Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville, who posted within hours of El-Said winning that primary that he's a terrorist. I think he said, quote, a radical Islamist who will do everything he can to destroy America. he's just one example, but it is indicative of the type of messaging that we are seeing,

both anti-Muslim and anti-Arab for many Republican lawmakers over the last few years. And I think we all know, like, especially over the last two decades, there have, of course, been these chapters of intense anti-Muslim sentiment in the country. What I think is notable now is that there is a sort of language shift in the way that we're seeing this play out. from the tropes of Muslims as a security threat to a civilizational threat. And, you know, it's not hard to go and find that. Nancy Mace has talked about this. She had a post that read something like every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse

and a threat to both national security and our republic. That is a notable shift. Right. So there's a lot that you're getting at there. And I want to drill down on one thing you mentioned, which are ads, because ads are where candidates really crystallize messages. So what are we hearing in the candidates' advertisements? Yeah. Well, I've watched a lot of them. And there are a lot of these, like, strong anti-Muslim sentiments. Honestly, it feels sort of like a trailer for a movie. And, you know, I say that not to

be trite because this is quite serious with real ramifications for people. But that's how it sounds. And it does kind of show you the way that this fearmongering is being displayed. Let's take a listen to what some of these ads have actually sounded like. Radical Islam is taking root in Texas. Radical Islam is incompatible with the West. They don't think we deserve the right to exist as Americans or as Christians. Hate our way of life. It wants Sharia law. Oklahoma is next.

There's a lot of themes of like our way of life is at stake. And, you know, the narratives within this have roots in the Great Replacement, which is a conspiracy theory that white populations in Western countries are being replaced by non-white populations, you know, for political purposes. And we know that this has real consequences. You know, there have been deadly attacks in, gosh, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, El Paso, San Diego. I mean, sadly, the list goes on and on. That have all been sort of inspired or driven by this conspiracy theory.

Yeah, I mean, it's interesting to me that you mention the idea of a Trojan horse in the rhetoric because there is literally an ad against Abdul El-Sayed where he is like, character in the Odyssey. So this is this is not, this is not just rhetorical. This is showing up. It is an ad that involves some AI recreations of things that never happened. Right. Well, Tam, I want to ask you about this because you were at the Republican midterm convention where the party, speaking of boiling down a message, they were really trying to put out a unified theory of why voters should elect them. And there, you heard a lot of this anti-Muslim messaging too, right? Oh, a lot of. lot, a lot. You know, there were times sitting at this convention where if you closed your eyes,

you would think everyone was Mike Rogers running for Senate in Michigan because literally everyone giving a speech was campaigning against Abdul El Sayyad, against Hassan Piker, who once campaigned with El Sayad. We should explain he is a media personality. He's a streamer. He has a big following on the left. And he is a strong critic of Israel's actions in Gaza. But he's also made comments that have been heavily criticized by Democratic leaders and El Sayed himself as dangerous. Yes. And so I think that the best summation of this or the speech that most captured, how much this rhetoric was part of the convention was Texas Senator Ted Cruz. And I just want you to hear what he said in his speech. And we're witnessing a new and dangerous red, green,

alliance, communists and Islamists coming together and sweeping over the Democrat Party. They are united because they share the same enemies. They hate Christians. They hate Jews. They hate capitalism. They hate the Constitution. And they hate America. It's a real. Yes. It is an us against them. It is really part of this broader effort from Republicans in this election cycle, in particular, when Republicans have a lot of problems where they are trying to portray Democrats as just far too extreme to be electable. Like, yeah, you might be upset that your gas prices are high. Your fuel oil is too expensive. Your groceries are expensive. But do you want these extremists who hate America and hate Jesus to be in office?

That would be dangerous. That's the message. You know, there's one other idea that keeps popping up in all of this, Barbara, this idea of Sharia law coming to the U.S. This is also not a new message. I know we've heard about that years ago. But first of all, we should say right now, Sharia law in the U.S., not a thing that's happening. But why elevate that idea in particular right now? Yeah, I mean, and this is like, I'm sure it was at that convention.

It was. It was a huge applause line for Governor Abbott. Yes, and Texas, and we'll talk about that, but Texas is sort of like the center of all of this in many ways. Yeah, I mean, for those who don't know, Sharia refers to like a very broad set of Islamic religious and ethical principles that guide Muslims in daily life. So that can be like daily prayer. It can be personal conduct. It is not something that is like superimposed on the American legal system. It can't usurp the U.S. Constitution.

And, you know, that is something. that some GOP figures allege is like the secret desire here, many of whom should know better because like they went to law school. So, and we've seen this manifest in other ways. Like, there's a Sharia-free America caucus with over 60 House Republicans in it on the hill. And I was talking to someone about this recently and she was like, well, Sharia-free. Like, to me that means Muslim-free, right? Like, what is the way that we're supposed to interpret this? The way that it is being sold is if it's coming to your communities and it's going to take over your legal system. And really, it's just a way of, like, Muslims who are devout, you know,

whatever that means to them, like the way that they are living their lives in accordance to their religious and ethical beliefs. So for only making up one percent of the U.S. population, it seems like there is this, like, much oversized emphasis on something that belongs to Muslims in their personal lives. To your question about why elevating it, I mean, I think it's clear it's a scare tactic. You know, it's somewhat shocking how overt and blatant it is. This is very far from like the days where we were like, hmm, this seems like a dog whistle. Like it's like calling to something that we feel like might be offensive or, you know, and it's, I mean, no holds barred. This is a different chapter than that. Okay, but I want to get out a bigger why here, which is why now?

Because there's been an undercurrent of Islamophobia in U.S. politics and culture since 9-11, but it has ebden flowed. why is now the moment for more of it? Barbara, you mentioned Zoran Mamdani, you mentioned Abdul al-Sayed, but it feels like it can't just be those two guys, right? No, no. I mean, I do think there is something about like for people who are espousing the great replacement, right? And they can point to successful Muslim politicians as a way to validate their point. Like, see, I told you so, look, you just won a Senate primary. But it is way too simplistic to sort of lay this at their feet, the reason for why this is happening. The folks that I've talked to, you know, point to something that really started brewing in Texas about two years ago when the Texas governor shared a post from a prominent anti-Muslim activist about a development project for a Muslim community outside of Dallas.

And implying it was like a quote, Sharia city beholden to Sharia law. And it just became this sort of like huge issue among Republicans in Texas. Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who of course is running for Senate, you know, they were laser focused on this. There was a lot of lawsuits. There was a lot of investigations. And I think we saw it sort of spread out from there. Yeah. I mean, this is in some ways. It is not unlike there are migrant caravans coming and they're going to come to America and change your life. It is a very well-worn campaign tactic, political tactic, to say, there is something you need to be afraid of. Right. And fear is a motivator in a way that contentment is not.

Well, and that gets at the big question I've been wondering about, which is, you know, the GOP and the Trump era, especially, of course, has pointed to immigrants as you're talking about as this big threat. And I want to be clear, it's not necessarily factually. claiming that immigrants are a threat. So now they're saying Islam is a threat. So has anti-Muslim messaging supplanted immigration as a key issue for Republicans? Well, I asked this to Vinnie Minchillo. He's a Republican political consultant. And he said, yes, in some ways. I don't think it's like the dominant force there, but it is a contributing factor. Because of the Trump administration's immigration policy, concerns among Republicans on immigration are a little less potent.

I think they're a little less persistent. But I think that it brings you to like this question of like, does this mean that it's effective messaging, you know? And I think that we've seen that fear can be an effective political messaging strategy. But I don't actually think that it's effective everywhere. Republicans have been working, particularly in states like Michigan, to make inroads with Muslim, and Arab communities.

And we saw last presidential election cycle that they did make some headway in Michigan. And so it is hard to think that this type of prevailing rhetoric doesn't erode some of that as support. But I also think that, you know, in Michigan in particular, Mike Rogers, who's running for Senate against Al-Sayyad, he is focused on trying to like expand his tent to bring in independence and bring in disaffected Democrats, many of which are Jewish. And they are also very turned off by this type of messaging. And so when I think about it, I think about how, you know, fear may sell, but it may not sell everywhere. And in some places, it may actually backfire for Republicans. I just want to say, we are a long way as a country from 2001 right after 9-11 when George W. Bush went to a mosque and said, Islam is peace. Right. Yes. And then it is. In 2008, when John McCain was at a campaign event and a woman said that she didn't trust Obama because he's an Arab.

And McCain grabbed the microphone and said, no, ma'am. He's a decent family man and citizen. And I just happened to have disagreements with him on fundamental issues. So there was a time when leaders in the Republican Party saw some of this bubbling up among the community, among their party and tried to respond to it, tried to sort of put it down to use their leadership position to say, ah, let's not go there, America. Right. This is not that time. Yeah.

And McCain in that moment, obviously, like, I mean, people praised him for taking the microphone back. Of course, like, within that sentiment is also something that's like, someone is, like, saying that Obama is an Arab. And he says, no, he's a decent family man. Right. I mean, many Arabs are decent failing men. But I think the broader point is he was fact-checking someone who had been given a lot of misinformation, trying to take it to a more bigoted and hateful place.

And he resisted that and went in the opposite direction. All right. We are going to have to leave it there. Let's take a break. Tam, go grab a coffee. Relax. We'll talk to you more in a bit. You know how much coffee I've already had.

I honestly don't, but I'd love to know. Too much. More after this. Welcome back. We are going to change gears entirely here. And to help us do that, we have NPR music reporter Isabella Gomez Sarmiento. Welcome, Isabella. Hi, Danielle.

So Isabella, this week, politics and music have intersected in a big way, namely between two artists who were on tour together, Ed Shearin and Macklemore. This is not our typical lane here on the politics podcast, but we definitely pay attention to music. And listeners, I'm sure, have clocked all of this. So let's start with the basics then, Isabella. What happened with these two artists? So you have to go back a couple of weeks to September 4th and 5th. That's when McElmore was opening two stadium shows for Ed Sheeran at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. While he was on stage, he took the opportunity to say some political things that had been on his mind.

I've been trying to figure out a way to say this all day. One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages and stage. stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart, free Palestine. He then went on to perform a song that he released a couple of years ago called Heinz Hall, which is a tribute to the Columbia University students who camped out to protest Israel's war in Gaza. This clip of McElmore speaking garnered a lot of traction on social media. I mean, you know, Ed Sheeran is a huge artist, so he's doing this at a pretty massive stadium show. And earlier this week, McElmore put out a statement on his Instagram,

basically saying that he had been kicked off of Ed Sheeran's tour over the way that he expressed support for Palestinians and for people in Gaza. I'm curious. So what was the explanation here, like on all different sides for why this happened? So in McElmore's statement, which was pretty lengthy, he said that he had been talking to Ed Shearne on the phone and that Ed Shearin basically told him Robert Kraft, who is the owner of Gillette Stadium in Boston, he also owns multiple sports teams that play there, including, you know, the New England Patriots. McElmore alleged that Robert Kraft told Ed Sheeran that McElmore would not be allowed to play at his venue and that he rallied other venue owners to put the same kind of pressure.

Then, you know, Ed Sheeran puts out his own statement saying that he had been trying to find a solution. He'd been talking to people on both sides of the aisle and that ultimately it was his promoter who decided to remove Macklemore from the tour. I reached out to the promoter, Messina Toring, and in a statement, they said that the decision to remove McElmore came from pressure from the venue owners. Robert Kraft, who owns Gillette Stadium, later told Rolling Stone in a statement that he did, in fact, block McElmore from performing at his venue. He said it had to do with the speech on stage at MetLife and what he saw as like a broader

history of anti-Semitic imagery from McElmore. Back in 2014, McElmore had performed on stage with a costume that people interpreted as an anti-Semitic caricature. It drew a lot of backlash, and he had apologized for doing that back in 2014 when it happened. Okay, so bring us to now then. What has the response been like, both toward McLemore and toward Ed Sheeran? So this has turned into kind of a pretty furious exchange. Shortly after it was announced that McElmore was off the tour, the other supporting acts dropped out.

So there was, you know, two singers, Lucas Graham and Aaron Rowe, who were supposed to open for the rest of the U.S. tour. they left the tour. Phineas, who is maybe best known as the producer and collaborator for his sister, Billy Elish. He was supposed to open for Ed Sheeran in South America. He also withdrew from the tour. And even Ed Sheeran's backing band, Bioga, you know, they've been playing with him for years and they would perform with him for part of the concert. They also announced they were leaving the tour. All of these artists said that they refused to support the silencing of McElmore and that they stood in solidarity with Palestinian people. Now, Barbara, I want to turn to you because we talk a lot on this podcast about the idea of free speech. And that idea is, of course, champion by a lot of politicians and public figures. And of course it is because free speech sounds good.

But when that speech doesn't align with certain people's beliefs, then they decry it. So I'm curious, how would you apply that idea to this situation? Yeah, I mean, I actually see this as sort of the way that free speech works in this country. This is kind of like a good example. You know, McLemore got to say his piece, something I would argue is not countercultural in this moment on the political left of which he is a part. You know, this idea that he's been silenced. I think, like, in some ways, he has a bigger microphone than ever before because of all the attention that's been drawn to this. But he said his piece, the owners of the venue who don't want that at their events, said, no thank you.

And that's their right as well. And no one was persecuted by the government over any of those things. You know, free speech is not a guarantee of freedom from economic consequences, but it is, you know, a guarantee of freedom from political persecution. And we have seen this before, you know, like Dave Chappelle has had venues cancel his performances because they don't like his comments on transgender people. You know, we've seen other authors and comedians pressured out of spaces, sometimes from protesters who don't like their views. Whether or not any of those things are actually good for the culture of dialogue and respect, that is a, that's a different. kettle of fish. But in some ways, I see this whole example as sort of a primer, so to speak, on what freedom of speech actually means in this country. You know, as you say all of that, and as we talk about this, I also keep thinking about the stric sand effect, which you guys may have heard of to explain for listeners who haven't. The strisand effect refers to the phenomenon where you try to suppress some information.

And in doing so, you draw everybody's attention to it. It's named after this incident. where the singer Barbara Streisand was trying to suppress or limit the distribution of a photograph of her home. She said, hey, I want this taken down. And in the process, everybody just went and looked at it. So in a similar vein here, I feel like we've seen things like that over the last year, a couple of years. I'm thinking when Stephen Colbert interviewed Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, but CBS didn't air the interview for fear of running a foul of equal to. time rules. And those rules, by the way, are enforced by the FCC, so part of the Trump administration.

So CBS didn't air that, but the Colbert Show put it online and a whole bunch of people went and watched it. And something similar happened to Jimmy Kimmel just recently when he interviewed Talleyco. Similarly, I think this is the first time I had heard about McLemore in quite a while. It seems as if, am I right, you guys in that Robert Kraft saying, hey, you can't perform here, has given Maclemore way more attention. I think it's a moment where Macklemore is not necessarily the coolest artist in the zeitgeist

and that being caught in this sort of political debate over what he's allowed to express on stage has totally put him in the spotlight in a way that he wasn't even a month ago. One thing that has been interesting to me is like this is part of his brand. Like it has been for some time.

And it's interesting to me in the sense that like you know like these comments from him are not really new. This perspective from him is not new. This song that he's which contains lyrics that some people do find, you know, offensive about Zionist money and things like that, you know, like, none of that is particularly new. And so I don't know if, like, perhaps Robert Kraft and others were just, like, not very up on the up and up about Maglmore recently, you know, but doesn't strike me as like a particularly surprising thing that he came

out and said something that was really shocking and, like, counter to everything that he's been you know, talking about in the last few years. Okay, to end this, Isabella, what do you think happens next year? As we move forward, you know, McElmore announced that he's donating the proceeds from those first shows he did to human rights organizations in Gaza, a $1 million donation. He challenged Robert Kraft to do the same. Now it appears that Robert Kraft and Ed Scheran are donating $2 million each. I think we see Ed Shearren in kind of an interesting position. He's tried really hard to stay apolitical. He said in his own statement, that he's appalled by the conflict, but that, you know, he doesn't believe in using his platform for politics.

I think it just raises bigger questions about what kind of responsibility we put on artists to speak out about political issues and what audiences really want to hear from them in moments where there are these big public disagreements. I've been thinking about, like, some of the ways in which, like, obviously this has put Ed Shearren in quite a bind, as you described. But also, like, it did not take long for, like, a lot of really ugly imagery to appear online. that's targeting Ed Shearin about in this whole situation. He gave a statement where he said like he keeps his view as private, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't care about like, I believe he called it a devastating conflict. And I just think like there's an element there that also needs to be addressed

in the way that like, you know, the way in which people have sort of like reacted to him online can be quite ugly in its own way. It's another layer in like a very sort of complicated, fraught. moment. All right, Isabella Gomez, Sarmiento, thank you so much for joining us. This was great. Thank you. Now let's take one more break. And when we come back, can't let it go.

And we're back. And so is Tam. Hello, Tam. Hello, it's lovely to be here. We are happy to have you for Can't Let It Go, which is the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week. We just can't stop thinking about politics or otherwise. So let's start with Barbara. Barbara, what can't you let go of?

Well, as always, I cannot let go of all of the royal drama. And I cannot let go of Harry. Megan, although they have let go of America for now because now they are back living in a private non-royal residence outside of London, which is I'm sure what I will say whenever I go to London one day and stay at an Airbnb. It's a private non-royal residence. Hey, I live in a private non-royal residence. I'll have you know. Exactly. Yeah. So, you know, I just, I'm really excited to see, like, what will come of all of this. Obviously, like, there's a lot of layers of drama with, like, him and his brother and, like, are Harry and Megan going to try to do, like, events the way that, like, they were doing when they were, quote, working royals and what kind of tension will that throw into everything?

And I also thought it was interesting that, like, you know, for a couple that has talked so much about their privacy concerns, I was watching one British royal press reporter talk about how, you know, there had been this emphasis on, like, let's make sure. to like prioritize privacy when they're coming back. And then not long after they arrived, Megan posted a video compilation that shows all these different features of the estate that they are living on. And within minutes, like people figured out where they were. And so like, I guess like a lesson would be perhaps like don't photograph like where you live and then send it on blast if you're, you know, concerned about your privacy. Kind of the opposite of the stricent effect or just the anti-strizing effect.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, maybe that'll keep the photographer. away because she's already given away all the, all the exclusive juice. I feel like the British paparazzi might be more aggressive than that. We shall see. They are always more aggressive than whatever that is.

All right, all right. Okay, Tam, what can't you let go of this week? So our colleague Deepa Chivram shared a text that she got from her friend Jack, who lives in Wilmington, North Carolina. And the text says, you'll love this. My co-workers' parents had skunks living in their carpenters. crawl space and tried everything to get rid of them. Fox urine, stuff like that.

But what ended up working was having a radio in the shed or somewhere near where there was an opening to the crawl space and having the radio play in PR 24-7 LMAO. We do what we can. Yeah. I mean, like maybe the skunks just fell asleep outside and then, you know, lost the will to go inside because of us. They were like, I hate all of this political coverage. I'm so tired of the news.

Yeah, maybe the news stressed out the skunks, you know? The skunks have news fatigue as well. And now the skunks are in therapy. All right. Who among us? All right. I'm going to let you know what I can't let go of. Trigger warning, this gets a little gross, but I can't stop thinking about it.

So do you guys know what Hirox is? Yes. Oh, yeah. All right. For the listeners who do not know, Hirox is a, it appears to be a pretty grueling type of competition where you run one kilometer in between doing any number of difficult physical challenges, like burpees or pushing a weighted sled, that sort of thing. So you do eight rounds of this of 1,000 meters running, do a really hard physical thing. So there was a really big competition

in Beijing where an Australian competitor named Joanna Wettrick was doing her higher-ox competition and, to delicately put it, her body lost control. Oh. She, she, she, she pooped herself. Let's just let's say it plainly. She pooped herself during the race. That happens on marathons all the time. You sound like Al Roker there. I was thinking of this tale. Like you understand you may have seen this in a marathon. You and I have both done races. You know, not me. I stay on the sidelines where it's safe. I don't blame you. So like this has created a whole whole kerfuffle online. Hirox is becoming more and more popular, of course. So people in the races care about it. But

I wouldn't even call it a controversy as it's been framed because it seems like many people are lining up behind, you know, she should have been pulled off the course. She should have quit, but she did not quit. She finished and she won. What she won? Yes. Well, then it's worth all the poop, I guess. But then amid all the controversy, she gave up her win. What?

Yes. Why? Why? Because she apologized. She said she felt bad because you're on equipment. You are exposing other people to your vehicle matter. Yes. Yeah, this is not just ducking into the bushes.

This is... Wait, so did she purposely poop herself or accidentally poop herself? I do believe this was accidental. Well, then it's not her fault. Oh, my gosh. Why would it not be accidental? It's not her fault. But you are still exposing people to potentially germ-ridden.

Barbara, to answer your question, like, you could be just so motivated to win that you don't want to mess up your time by going potty. Okay, we are going to leave it there for today. Our executive producer is Methoni Maturi. Our producer is Brea Suggs. Casey Morel edits the podcast, and special thanks to Dana Farrington and Jacob Gans. I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House. I'm Barbara Sprint. I cover Congress. And I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics.

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.