Donald Trump has built his political identity around one of the most recognizable slogans in modern American politics: “America First.”
But as the United States heads deeper into the 2026 midterm election campaign, another political message is gaining attention — one centred on healthcare, housing, working people, corporate influence and a dramatic change in America’s relationship with Israel.
That message is being pushed by Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Michigan.
Trump and El-Sayed are not running directly against each other. Trump is president, while El-Sayed is running for a Senate seat. But politically, they offer two sharply different ideas about what the United States should prioritise and who government should ultimately serve.
The contrast raises a much bigger question:
Which vision actually puts ordinary Americans first?
TRUMP’S VERSION OF “AMERICA FIRST”
Trump has repeatedly argued that his policies are designed to strengthen the United States, protect American interests and restore American power.
His supporters point to his immigration policies, tariffs, push for domestic manufacturing and tougher approach toward foreign competitors as evidence that “America First” remains at the centre of his presidency.
But critics argue there is a contradiction when it comes to Israel.
Despite the “America First” message, the Trump administration has continued extensive military cooperation with Israel.
In March 2026, the U.S. State Department approved a possible $151.8 million sale of munitions and support to Israel, including 12,000 1,000-pound bomb bodies.
A separate State Department report said Israel received approximately $9.6 billion in Foreign Military Sales and $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing in fiscal year 2025.
For critics of U.S. foreign policy, that raises an obvious question: if America is supposed to come first, should billions of dollars and major weapons transfers continue flowing overseas?
Supporters of the U.S.-Israel alliance argue the relationship strengthens American strategic interests in the Middle East, helps deter regional threats and supports a long-standing ally.
That disagreement is now becoming a much bigger political dividing line.
ABDUL EL-SAYED WANTS THE WEAPONS FLOW STOPPED
El-Sayed has taken almost the opposite position.
He has campaigned for ending U.S. military aid and weapons sales to Israel and has become one of the most prominent Democratic candidates willing to openly challenge Washington’s traditional support for the Israeli government.
His position helped make Israel policy one of the defining issues of Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.
El-Sayed ultimately won that primary and is now facing Republican Mike Rogers in the November general election.
His victory attracted national attention partly because enormous amounts of outside money were spent trying to defeat him, including tens of millions of dollars connected to pro-Israel political groups.
Rather than moving away from the issue, El-Sayed made outside political spending and the influence of wealthy interests part of his broader campaign message.
MEDICARE FOR ALL
Healthcare is another major difference.
El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health director, has made Medicare for All one of the central policies of his campaign.
His argument is straightforward: healthcare should be treated as a right rather than something determined by employment, income or the ability to afford private insurance.
His campaign says every American should have access to affordable healthcare and that government should challenge a healthcare system that leaves families facing high premiums, deductibles and medical bills.
Whether Americans agree with Medicare for All or prefer a private insurance system is a legitimate political debate.
But the philosophical difference is clear.
El-Sayed is arguing for a much larger government role in guaranteeing healthcare coverage.
HOUSING AND THE COST OF LIVING
Housing is also central to El-Sayed’s campaign.
Across many American cities, rent and home prices have become major political issues, particularly for younger workers and families who increasingly feel home ownership is slipping beyond their reach.
El-Sayed has made solving the housing crisis and lowering costs part of his economic platform.
His broader argument is that economic policy should be judged by what happens to ordinary workers rather than simply by stock markets, corporate earnings or the fortunes of the richest Americans.
That message closely resembles the economic populism associated with figures such as Bernie Sanders.
TRUMP’S WEALTH CONTINUES TO DRAW ATTENTION
Trump’s personal wealth creates another striking contrast.
Forbes estimated Trump’s fortune at $4.3 billion for its 2024 Forbes 400 ranking.
By September 2025, Forbes estimated his wealth had climbed to a record $7.3 billion — an increase of approximately $3 billion.
The figure later fell. Forbes estimated Trump was worth approximately $6.5 billion in March 2026.
So it would be inaccurate to suggest his fortune has simply moved upward without interruption.
But there is no question that Trump and his family’s business interests have remained highly active while he has been president.
Forbes reported in July 2026 that Trump’s foreign licensing business had grown dramatically as he returned to power, while another Forbes investigation reported that Trump had generated significantly more income after returning to the White House.
Supporters say Trump built his businesses long before returning to office and has every right to continue benefiting from legitimate private assets.
Critics see something very different.
They argue that having a sitting president whose personal brand, cryptocurrency interests, licensing arrangements, properties and businesses can increase in value creates unavoidable questions about money, influence and political power.
MONEY IN POLITICS
This may be where the difference between Trump and El-Sayed becomes most obvious.
El-Sayed has made opposition to corporate political influence a major part of his campaign.
PolitiFact examined his claim that he had never taken corporate PAC money during his political campaigns and found the claim accurate when referring specifically to corporate PAC contributions.
His campaign describes itself as a movement challenging oligarchs, corporate greed and wealthy special interests.
That does not automatically mean his policies are right or that every voter will support them.
But it does establish a clear political dividing line.
One side believes lower regulation, private enterprise and powerful businesses can drive prosperity.
The other argues that extreme concentrations of wealth increasingly allow corporations and billionaires to shape government in ways ordinary voters cannot.
TWO VERY DIFFERENT VISIONS OF AMERICA
This comparison is bigger than Trump versus El-Sayed personally.
It represents a much broader argument taking place across America.
What does “America First” actually mean?
Does it mean military strength, border enforcement, tariffs, business growth and maintaining alliances such as the relationship with Israel?
Or should it mean universal healthcare, affordable housing, higher wages, less corporate influence and refusing to finance foreign wars?
Trump believes his movement represents working Americans who were ignored by the political establishment.
El-Sayed is effectively arguing that the system Trump leads still gives too much power to billionaires, corporations and foreign-policy interests while millions of Americans struggle with healthcare, rent, food and everyday expenses.
Both sides claim to represent ordinary Americans.
Ultimately, voters will decide which argument they believe.
But the contrast could hardly be clearer.
Trump supports continuing the strategic U.S.-Israel relationship and leads a political movement heavily focused on national strength, borders, trade and private enterprise.
El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, tackling the housing crisis, reducing corporate influence in politics and ending U.S. military aid and weapons sales to Israel.
Two politicians.
Two very different ideas about government.
Two very different visions of America.
And one question worth asking:
WHICH VISION OF AMERICA PUTS ORDINARY PEOPLE FIRST — TRUMP’S OR ABDUL EL-SAYED’S?