JD Vance criticizes Abdul El-Sayed after remarks cited as referencing Sharia law

Vice President JD Vance publicly criticized Abdul El-Sayed in a dispute over comments that multiple outlets have characterized as referencing Sharia law, according to a New York Post report published August 22, 2026. In the report, Vance contrasted El-Sayed’s statements with what he described as his late grandfather’s political identity and reasoning for supporting Democratic candidates.

The New York Post reported that Vance tied his remarks to his grandfather’s history as a voter, saying his grandfather supported Democrats because he believed it was “the party of union men.” In the same exchange, Vance said, “That’s not my grandpa’s Democratic Party,” describing El-Sayed’s position as not belonging to the tradition he associated with his family’s voting decisions.

Vance’s comments were presented as part of his response to El-Sayed’s earlier statements, which the New York Post described as involving Sharia. The report did not provide additional documentation in the story itself beyond attributing the characterization of the remarks to El-Sayed and to the reporting that followed.

The dispute highlights a recurrent political flashpoint in U.S. campaigns and political speech: how candidates and public officials address religious law and the role of religiously informed legal frameworks in a secular constitutional system. In this case, Vance’s response, as reported, framed the disagreement around the boundaries of mainstream Democratic voting coalitions and the meaning of the party label through a family-history lens.

El-Sayed, according to the same reporting, is the focus of criticism for remarks described as referencing Sharia law. The New York Post report attributes Vance’s counterstatement to that context, using the late grandfather anecdote to underline his claim that he was not endorsing the views the report attributed to El-Sayed.

There was no reported immediate formal legal action tied to the exchange in the New York Post item. Instead, the controversy centered on public rhetoric and political identity, with the practical effect being additional scrutiny of how religiously grounded legal concepts are discussed by candidates and political figures in mainstream elections.

The next steps for the issue depend on what, if any, further clarification El-Sayed provides about the statements that drew attention and whether additional public responses emerge from other elected officials or party leaders. For now, the record in the New York Post item is limited to Vance’s comments as reported and the characterization of El-Sayed’s earlier remarks as involving Sharia.