Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers from Michigan is under fire for his past votes on healthcare and benefits for 9/11 first responders, as he targets his Democratic opponent Abdul El-Sayed over past remarks regarding the September 11 attacks. Rogers has pointed to old social media posts by El-Sayed, suggesting they show sympathy for the attacks, although critics challenge this interpretation. Meanwhile, records from Rogers’ time in Congress reveal he opposed the 2010 James Zadroga Act, which provided healthcare funding and monitoring for responders and survivors affected by toxic conditions at Ground Zero.
Rogers justified his opposition to the Zadroga Act by citing concerns about its impact on the nation’s finances. Despite his stance, the bill passed in the House with bipartisan support, overcoming resistance from Rogers and other Republicans. Additionally, Rogers voted against a 2002 measure that included funding for veterans’ healthcare and first responders, which was part of a broader package addressing the financial aftermath of 9/11 on New York schools. In subsequent years, he was against several proposals aimed at improving funding, pensions, and other benefits for first responders.
John Feal, a 9/11 responder and advocate for healthcare benefits, criticized Rogers’ voting record, labeling his opposition to assistance for first responders as a betrayal. Feal recounted discussing the Zadroga legislation with Rogers during its congressional deliberations. The scrutiny over Rogers’ record is compounded by his recent campaign email claim that he saw Osama bin Laden’s body following the U.S. raid in Pakistan. However, Rogers was not present in Pakistan nor in the White House Situation Room during the operation.
This controversy arises amid a closely contested race between Rogers and El-Sayed for Michigan’s open Senate seat, a pivotal contest that could influence party control in Congress. As both candidates vie for voters’ support, Rogers’ legislative history and campaign statements continue to be focal points of debate and criticism.