Michigan's Senate Nominee Floated Swapping the Second Amendment for Healthcare
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, once floated trading the Second Amendment for a constitutional right to healthcare. Dan Bongino revived the old remark and put the trade to his audience: would you give up gun rights for government-run medicine? In a 2023 video, El-Sayed asked, "What if we tweaked the Constitution?" He then suggested replacing the right to keep and bear arms with healthcare. The original video is now private, but The Reload covered the remarks after El-Sayed's campaign gained momentum. He made the comments in the aftermath of the Covenant School shooting in Nashville. This is not a fresh campaign pitch. It is an old position that followed him into the general election against Republican Mike Rogers.
Key Details
The facts are straightforward, and the reaction has been swift.
- El-Sayed's 2023 video asked whether the Constitution could be "tweaked" and proposed a healthcare right in place of the right to bear arms.
- The video has since been made private, but the remarks resurfaced during his Senate campaign.
- El-Sayed argued that removing an enumerated right would not be a minor adjustment. He said it would replace a Bill of Rights protection with a government-provided benefit.
- Bongino contends that Bill of Rights protections restrict what government can do to citizens. A healthcare right would require taxpayer funding, government administration and services delivered by providers.
- In August 2026, during a television interview, El-Sayed did not disavow replacing the Second Amendment. He said he was comfortable with people owning hunting rifles.
- Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, called the proposal extreme and urged other Democratic leaders to reject it publicly.
- El-Sayed's endorsements page lists GIFFORDS PAC and a Moms Demand Action "Gun Sense Candidate" designation. GIFFORDS announced its endorsement in August.
- Under Article V, an amendment needs a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of the states. Three-fourths of the states must then ratify it.
El-Sayed went on to win the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan. Bongino's question to Democratic gun owners is direct. Why would a Second Amendment supporter back a candidate who once proposed removing it?
Background
The Second Amendment's modern legal footing rests on two Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, including for self-defense in the home. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court struck down New York's discretionary carry licensing regime. It also set a test requiring modern gun laws to fit within the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Under that framework, a politician cannot simply change the subject by promising a different benefit. The right exists independently of what Washington later decides to fund.
Article V has been the amendment process since 1789. Only 27 amendments have been ratified, and none has been added since 1992. The process was designed to be hard. Getting to 38 states requires broad, sustained national agreement. Michigan's own constitution also protects the right. Its Article 1, Section 6 guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Michigan voters are the first audience for this message, but the issue reaches further. Any candidate who treats a constitutional right as a bargaining chip deserves scrutiny in every race. Gun owners in Michigan should check where candidates stand on the Second Amendment, not just on specific bills. Ask for a direct answer. A hedge is an answer too, and it tells you something. Pay attention to endorsements, too. A Moms Demand Action or GIFFORDS designation signals alignment with groups that push for restrictions. It does not prove a candidate would act on every item on those groups' lists, but it does matter. If you attend town halls or candidate forums, ask a specific question: would you support any amendment that removes or limits the right to keep and bear arms? Write down the answer. Then compare it with the next answer you hear. Consistency matters more than slogans.
DownRange Analysis
Does this survive Bruen? The question is less about courts and more about the political claim itself. Under Bruen, the Second Amendment is a text-and-history right. Replacing it with a healthcare entitlement would require a constitutional amendment, not a judicial ruling. That is the hard truth. No senator or president can rewrite the Constitution by executive order or floor vote. Article V makes the trade a near impossibility, and El-Sayed's comment reads more like an opinion than a plan. Still, rhetoric shapes votes and policy direction. A candidate who calls a protected right a tradeable benefit tells you how he thinks about constitutional limits. Gun owners should act with a clear head. Document the quotes. Verify the sources. Vote on record, not on rumor. Support state and national groups that track candidate positions. Keep your carry permits and purchase records in order. The right is strong on paper, but it holds only when owners stay engaged.
