In the race for Michigan’s open Senate seat, Republican candidate Mike Rogers is confronting renewed criticism regarding his legislative record on healthcare and benefits for 9/11 first responders and survivors. This comes as he challenges his Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, over past remarks related to the September 11 attacks. Rogers recently drew attention to previous social media posts by El-Sayed, alleging they expressed sympathy for the attacks, a claim that has faced skepticism from critics.
However, scrutiny has turned towards Rogers’ own voting record in Congress, particularly his opposition to the 2010 James Zadroga Act. This legislation was crucial in providing funding for healthcare and monitoring services for 9/11 responders and survivors exposed to hazardous conditions at Ground Zero. Rogers argued against the legislation on the grounds that it posed financial risks to the nation, yet it passed the House despite his and other Republicans’ resistance.
Further examination of Rogers’ legislative history reveals that in 2002, he voted against additional funding allocated for veterans’ healthcare and first responders in bills meant to address the financial repercussions of 9/11 on New York schools. In subsequent years, he consistently opposed several initiatives related to funding, pensions, and benefits intended for first responders. John Feal, a 9/11 responder and advocate for responder healthcare benefits, has openly criticized Rogers’ stance, calling it a betrayal. Feal recounted having direct discussions with Rogers about the Zadroga Act during its congressional consideration.
Adding to the controversy, Rogers claimed in a campaign email to have personally seen Osama bin Laden’s body following the U.S. raid in Pakistan that resulted in his death. This assertion has faced skepticism, as Rogers was neither in Pakistan during the operation nor in the White House Situation Room where senior U.S. officials observed the mission. The race between Rogers and El-Sayed remains closely watched, with potential implications for congressional control.