Mike Rogers’ votes against 9/11 responder benefits draw scrutiny in Michigan Senate race

A candidate’s record returns to the campaign

Michigan Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers voted twice against major benefit measures for September 11 first responders and survivors, according to congressional records reviewed by the Guardian. The record has resurfaced after Rogers sought to make old social-media posts by his Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, an issue in the campaign. The dispute is consequential because the open Michigan seat could help determine control of the US Senate after the November midterm elections.

Rogers opposed the House version of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act in 2010. That measure financed medical monitoring and treatment for responders and survivors exposed to toxic material around Ground Zero. He had also voted in 2002 against adding healthcare funds for veterans and first responders to legislation compensating New York City schools for September 11-related costs. The 2010 package nevertheless passed the House.

A broader pattern, and the campaign’s response

The Guardian also identified later votes by Rogers against budget amendments containing first-responder funding and against a proposal protecting responder pensions. His campaign did not directly reverse or disavow those votes in its response to the newspaper. Instead, it defended scrutiny of El-Sayed’s associations and comments, keeping the argument focused on the Democratic candidate rather than Rogers’ earlier legislative choices.

The renewed attention comes during the 25th anniversary of the attacks, when responder health remains part of the official national commemoration. A White House proclamation recognised that thousands of first responders continue to suffer serious health conditions caused by their service. It also ordered flags flown at half-staff for the 2,977 people killed in the attacks, reinforcing the political sensitivity of any record concerning long-term medical support.

What the dispute can and cannot establish

A vote against a large bill does not by itself prove opposition to every programme within it; lawmakers can object to cost, financing or unrelated provisions. Rogers argued during the 2010 debate that the package threatened federal finances. The relevant electoral question is therefore how he explains the balance he struck and whether he now supports continuing responder benefits. Voters will also judge whether his attacks on El-Sayed are consistent with his own legislative history. The next meaningful development would be a detailed policy response from either campaign.