Jocelyn Benson’s Data-Center Hypocrisy Demands Answers

 

Benson now promises strict rules for data centers. But when a company employing her husband pushed a project in Saline Township, local officials rejected it—and the development moved forward after the company sued.

Jocelyn Benson wants Michigan voters to believe she will stand up to data-center developers. She says she would impose a moratorium until the state adopts rules for public hearings, transparency, environmental protections, and electricity costs.

Then comes the question her campaign cannot bury: Why should Michigan trust her to enforce rules she is only demanding now, after a company employing her husband helped push a controversial project past a community’s rejection?

Ryan Friedrichs, Benson’s husband, was a senior executive at Related Companies and worked on the Saline Township data-center project. He appeared before local officials for the developer. In September 2025, the township board voted 4–1 against the rezoning required for the project. Related Digital sued days later. The township then reached a settlement that allowed the project to proceed.

That is the record: elected local officials said no; the developer sued; and the project moved ahead through a settlement. Residents were heard, but they did not get the result their board’s vote called for.

Benson now says Michigan needs open negotiations and transparency to prevent backroom deals. Those principles sound compelling in a campaign speech. They sound considerably less convincing when a company tied to her household was pressing ahead with a project after local officials rejected it.

The connections raise an obvious ethical cloud. Friedrichs worked for the company advancing the project. Stephen Ross, Related Companies’ founder, previously employed Benson as CEO of the Ross Initiative in Sports for Equality and has contributed to her campaigns. That does not prove a quid pro quo or establish that Benson intervened in the Saline project. It does make the public entitled to demand more than a carefully worded denial.

Benson’s financial disclosure lists $370,000 in income for Friedrichs from his employer. That is not proof of a project commission, and it should not be portrayed as $370,000 paid by the data center. But it is a substantial household income from the company whose project he worked on. Related Companies has said Friedrichs received no commission from the project; Bridge Michigan found no evidence he stood to make millions. Those facts limit what can responsibly be claimed. They do not make the underlying relationship disappear.

Benson’s campaign says Friedrichs is no longer working on Michigan data-center projects, has recused himself from state-related work that could come before a Benson administration, and that Benson herself had no role in authorizing or developing the Saline project. The project advanced under Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration. But “I wasn’t the decision-maker” is not a satisfying answer to a candidate now asking voters to trust her judgment on the same industry that employed her husband.

The real issue is not whether Benson personally signed a permit. It is whether she applies one standard to politically connected insiders and another to everyone else. Her husband helped advance the project. Her former professional benefactor founded the company behind it and donated to her campaigns. The township rejected the project, then faced a lawsuit and settled.

Now Benson says future developers must negotiate openly, respect communities, and meet strict conditions. Where was that standard when her husband’s employer was making its case in Saline?

Voters should not accept campaign promises as proof of accountability. They should demand clear answers: What did Benson know about Friedrichs’s role, and when? What steps did she take to avoid conflicts? Why should residents believe her proposed guardrails will bind powerful developers when the Saline project advanced despite the local board’s rejection?

The public record does not establish a kickback or prove Benson intervened. It does establish enough overlapping relationships and enough political double talk to make this a serious credibility problem. Benson wants to write the rules for data centers. Before Michigan hands her that power, she should explain why her own household’s connections to this project did not require stronger safeguards from the start.

The project’s critics have collected documents and links at Data Center Darlings. Readers should also examine the township records, independent reporting, and Benson’s response.

VIDEO: Pilot Makes Dramatic Emergency Landing on I-69 Near Flint After Engine Failure

What could have been a deadly aviation accident ended with a small airplane safely on the ground and everyone walking away unharmed.

FLINT TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A pilot flying toward Bishop International Airport found himself in a frightening situation Saturday when his single-engine airplane suddenly developed engine trouble, leaving him searching for somewhere to land.

With the aircraft losing power and the airport apparently out of reach, the pilot made a split-second decision that may have saved his life. He aimed for Interstate 69 near the I-75 interchange in Flint Township.

Somehow, he managed to bring the airplane down along the highway shoulder without hitting a single vehicle.

No injuries were reported.

It was the kind of emergency that could have ended very differently, especially along a busy stretch of interstate where motorists would hardly expect to encounter an airplane coming in for a landing.

Trouble in the Air

The aircraft was reportedly approaching Bishop International Airport when a mechanical problem caused its engine to lose power.

For anyone unfamiliar with aviation, losing an engine doesn't necessarily mean an airplane is going to fall straight out of the sky. Small aircraft can glide without engine power, but that doesn't make the situation any less serious.

Altitude becomes precious, time becomes limited, and the pilot must quickly figure out where the airplane can safely touch down.

An airport runway is always preferable, but when one is no longer within reach, pilots have to work with whatever terrain is available.

In this case, that meant a Michigan interstate.

Landing on a highway presents its own set of dangers. There are moving vehicles, overhead signs, bridges, guardrails, and utility lines. Even an otherwise successful touchdown can turn disastrous if an aircraft strikes an obstacle or collides with traffic.

Fortunately, none of that happened Saturday.

A Pilot's Training Put to the Test

Emergency procedures are part of every pilot's training, but practicing an engine failure with an instructor is one thing. Experiencing an actual loss of power while approaching an airport is something entirely different.

There is no opportunity to pull over, stop, and assess the problem.

The pilot must maintain enough airspeed to keep the airplane flying while identifying a landing site and deciding whether there is time to attempt an engine restart.

Every second matters.

Saturday's outcome suggests the pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft and make the most of an extremely difficult situation.

While the full circumstances have not yet been established, bringing a powerless airplane down beside an active interstate without injuring anyone is no small accomplishment.

What Caused the Engine to Fail?

Authorities are investigating what went wrong.

Engine problems in small airplanes can occur for several reasons, ranging from fuel delivery issues and ignition failures to mechanical breakdowns.

Investigators will likely examine the aircraft's engine, maintenance records, and available flight information to determine what caused the reported loss of power.

Until that investigation is completed, it would be premature to suggest that any particular mechanical defect or maintenance issue was responsible.

A Close Call With a Happy Ending

There is something remarkable about the fact that an airplane experiencing engine trouble could come down beside one of the Flint area's major highway interchanges without anyone getting hurt.

For the pilot, what should have been an ordinary approach to Bishop International Airport became an emergency requiring immediate action.

For drivers on I-69, it was certainly not something they would expect to see during a Saturday drive.

The investigation will eventually provide a clearer picture of why the engine failed. For now, the most important part of this story is how it ended.

The airplane made it to the ground, no motorists were struck, and the pilot escaped injury.

On a day when so much could have gone wrong, just about everything that mattered went right.

Benson Says Michigan Can “Get Around” Trump’s Canada Tariffs — But a Governor Cannot Override Federal Trade Law

The Democratic nominee for Michigan governor is promising Canadian “carve-outs.” The Constitution raises a much harder question: Where exactly would a Michigan governor get the authority to bypass a federal tariff?

Michigan Secretary of State and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson has made an extraordinary promise to Michigan voters: if elected governor, she says she can negotiate directly with Canada to protect Michigan from President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

There is just one enormous problem with that promise.

The governor of Michigan does not control United States tariff policy.

Benson has repeatedly promoted what she calls “subnational agreements” between Michigan and Canada. Her campaign has described them as “carve-outs” that could protect Michigan businesses, consumers and the auto industry from federal tariffs.

On September 30, Benson said she would negotiate agreements “simply between Michigan and our neighbor to the north” to find ways to protect Michigan border crossings from federal tariff policies. Her campaign has made similar statements repeatedly. (jocelynbenson)

But Benson has gone considerably further than simply promising better relations with Canada.

During a September 6 appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, Benson said that as governor she could meet Canadian officials and find ways to ensure Michigan-Canada trade “gets around these tariffs.” 

That wording matters.

Because governors can negotiate, cooperate and advocate.

They cannot rewrite federal tariff law.

CBS Immediately Asked the Obvious Question

CBS moderator Margaret Brennan challenged Benson directly.

If the tariffs are being imposed by the federal government, Brennan essentially asked, how could Michigan possibly cancel out those costs at the state level?

Benson did not identify a federal statute giving Michigan an exemption. She did not identify presidential authority allowing Michigan to establish its own tariff schedule. And she did not explain how an agreement between Michigan and Canadian officials could legally eliminate a tariff imposed under federal authority.

Instead, she returned to the idea of subnational agreements and said Michigan could find ways for trade with Canada to “get around” the tariffs. 

That isn't a minor detail in her proposal.

It is the central legal question.

If Benson is merely proposing cooperation with Canada to reduce other costs associated with trade, she should say precisely that.

If she is claiming that Michigan can negotiate a Canadian “carve-out” that exempts goods from a valid federal tariff, she needs to explain where that authority exists.

Tariffs Are Federal Policy, Not Michigan Policy

The Constitution did not create 50 separate American trade policies.

Article I gives Congress authority over commerce with foreign nations. The Constitution also sharply restricts states' authority over imports and exports.

And Article I, Section 10 specifically restricts states from entering agreements or compacts with foreign powers without congressional consent in circumstances covered by the Compact Clause. The Constitution Annotated published by Congress notes these explicit restrictions on state power. 

Then there is the Supremacy Clause.

Valid federal law is the supreme law of the land. A state cannot simply enact a conflicting policy because its governor believes Washington made a bad decision.

That principle applies whether the governor is a Republican fighting a Democratic president or a Democrat fighting a Republican president.

Michigan does not get a constitutional veto over Washington simply because federal policy disproportionately affects Michigan.

Imagine the Reverse Situation

The constitutional problem becomes obvious if the political parties are reversed.

Suppose a Democratic president imposed federal environmental restrictions on imports from another country.

Then imagine a Republican Michigan governor announcing:

I disagree with Washington, so I'm negotiating directly with that foreign country to create a Michigan carve-out that gets around the federal restrictions.

Would Democrats accept that?

Would Benson?

Almost certainly, the immediate question would be whether a governor was attempting to nullify federal law.

That is precisely why constitutional limits cannot depend upon which party controls Washington.

Michigan Can Work With Canada. That's Not the Same Thing.

None of this means Michigan's governor must sit silently while federal trade policy damages the state.

Michigan and Canada share enormous economic interests. A governor absolutely can maintain relationships with Canadian officials, promote Michigan exports, encourage Canadian investment, coordinate infrastructure projects, work on supply-chain problems and lobby Washington for exemptions or changes in federal policy.

A governor could also pursue lawful state policies designed to offset some economic consequences of tariffs.

Those are legitimate exercises of state leadership.

But Benson's rhetoric repeatedly goes further.

Her own campaign said on September 14 that she would negotiate agreements so Michigan-Canada trade could “get around these tariffs.” (jocelynbenson)

More recently, her campaign quoted her describing “carve-outs” between Michigan and Canada designed to protect Michigan from the tariffs. (jocelynbenson)

Those claims deserve scrutiny.

Where Is the Legal Authority?

Benson is running to become governor of Michigan, not president of the United States and not the United States Trade Representative.

So there are straightforward questions she should answer:

1. What specific legal authority allows a Michigan governor to negotiate a tariff “carve-out” with Canada?

2. Would the agreement require approval from Congress or the federal executive branch?

3. Would U.S. Customs and Border Protection still collect the federal tariff when Canadian goods enter Michigan?

4. If the federal tariff remains payable, what exactly does “get around these tariffs” mean?

5. If Benson isn't claiming Michigan can override the tariff itself, why repeatedly describe the proposal as a way to “get around” federal tariffs?

Those aren't partisan questions.

They are constitutional ones.

A Governor Cannot Create Her Own Foreign-Trade Policy

There is an important distinction Benson's campaign appears determined to blur.

A governor can oppose federal policy.

A governor can lobby to change federal policy.

A governor can challenge federal action in court when there is a legitimate legal basis.

A governor can cooperate with Canadian officials on matters within state authority.

But a governor cannot simply declare that Michigan has negotiated its way out of federal law.

If Washington has imposed a valid tariff under federal law, Michigan cannot erase that tariff through an agreement negotiated in Lansing or Toronto.

That's federal supremacy.

And no campaign slogan changes it.

Benson Owes Michigan More Than a Promise

Perhaps Benson has something narrower in mind.

Perhaps “get around” doesn't mean circumventing the tariff legally. Perhaps she means finding efficiencies, subsidies, procurement arrangements, supply-chain changes or other policies that reduce the economic impact of tariffs without eliminating them.

If that's the proposal, Benson should explain it.

Because telling Michigan voters that their governor can negotiate “carve-outs” with another country and “get around” federal tariffs creates an impression of gubernatorial authority that simply does not exist if she is talking about overriding the tariff itself.

Michigan voters deserve specifics before Election Day.

Benson is free to argue that Trump's tariffs are economically destructive. She is free to campaign against them. She is free to demand that Congress repeal them or that the president withdraw them.

What she cannot credibly promise is something the Constitution does not give a Michigan governor the power to deliver.

Michigan is a state, not a sovereign nation with its own tariff policy.

And whoever occupies the governor's office remains bound by the same Constitution and federal laws as everyone else.

MICHIGAN'S 11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Ethan Baker (R) Confronts Jeremy Moss (D) Recording - Voters Deserve Answers About America, Israel and Who Comes First

The Washington Post’s September 5 examination found no evidence that the clip it reviewed was AI-generated or edited, while the recording’s origin remained unresolved. (The Washington Post)

For months, a controversial recording attributed to Michigan State Senator and congressional candidate Jeremy Moss has hung over the race for Michigan's 11th Congressional District.

Now Troy Mayor and Republican congressional candidate Ethan Baker is confronting the controversy directly.

And at this point, simply dismissing the recording does not resolve the questions surrounding it.

If Moss maintains that the recording is false, voters are entitled to examine his denial alongside the recording itself, the available forensic analysis and whatever additional evidence becomes public.

The issue is bigger than a political feud between two candidates.

It concerns the priorities of someone seeking a seat in the United States Congress.

Baker Says Voters Deserve the Truth

In his October 2 statement, Baker explains that he did not immediately seize upon the recording as a political weapon.

He says he condemned hatred and personal attacks against Moss, attempted to lower the temperature surrounding the controversy and gave Moss an opportunity to respond.

But Baker also makes another point that should not be overlooked:

"And, there is another side of this that I believe we also have to respect: the people of this district and their concerns about the truth."

Exactly.

Respect for a candidate cannot require voters to stop asking questions.

Moss is seeking federal office. When potentially consequential statements are publicly attributed to someone seeking that responsibility, voters have every right to examine them closely.

What Is Heard on the Recording?

The approximately 25-second recording has been attributed online to Moss. Moss disputes that attribution and has strongly denied making the statements.

One of the statements heard on the recording says:

"The entire purpose of my campaign is to make sure America continues to support Israel."

Another says:

"America is not our homeland."

If those statements are authentic and attributable to Moss, they would raise serious questions about the priorities of a candidate asking Michigan voters to send him to Washington.

Moss says they are not his words.

That is his position.

But a denial does not end public scrutiny of a disputed recording. Voters can examine the denial together with the other available evidence.

The Forensic Findings Cannot Simply Be Ignored

The controversy becomes more significant because forensic specialists examining the publicly available audio reportedly found no evidence that the recording they examined was AI-generated or edited.

That does not answer every question surrounding the recording. Its original source remains an important unresolved issue.

But the forensic findings matter because one of the central questions surrounding the controversy has been whether the audible material itself was artificially created or technically manipulated.

The examination did not find evidence of that in the audio reviewed.

So the questions remain.

Where did the recording originate?

What was the complete conversation?

Is there a longer recording?

What evidence supports Moss's contention that the material is false?

Those are legitimate questions for a congressional candidate.

Baker Even Acknowledges a Problem With One Version

Baker does something important in his statement that strengthens the case for examining the evidence carefully rather than accepting everything circulated on social media.

He acknowledges that a caption accompanying one version of the recording attributed words that were not actually audible.

Baker says that caption should not be treated as part of the recording.

That's the appropriate standard.

Remove what cannot be supported.

Then examine what remains.

An inaccurate caption does not automatically establish that the underlying audio is fabricated. They are separate questions.

That distinction deserves considerably more attention.

"The Entire Purpose of My Campaign"

This is where Moss should face the most direct questioning.

The statement heard on the recording is not merely:

"I support Israel."

Many Republicans and Democrats strongly support Israel. That is a conventional foreign-policy position that voters can support or oppose.

The recording goes much further.

The speaker describes ensuring continued American support for Israel as the "entire purpose" of the campaign.

Those words, if authentically attributable to Moss, would demand an explanation.

Michigan's 11th District is not located in Israel.

Its representative is elected by Americans living in Michigan.

Those constituents are concerned about housing, taxes, inflation, insurance costs, health care, Social Security, Medicare, jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure, immigration, education and public safety.

A candidate seeking to represent those people should therefore be prepared to answer a straightforward question:

If the recording is authentic, why would ensuring American support for Israel be described as the "entire purpose" of a campaign for the United States Congress?

That is not an antisemitic question.

It is a question about congressional priorities.

And What About "America Is Not Our Homeland"?

The second statement deserves scrutiny as well:

"America is not our homeland."

Again, Moss denies making the statements attributed to him.

But if that statement is ultimately established as authentic and attributable to him, voters would reasonably want to know precisely what was meant.

What was the context?

What came immediately before it?

What came afterward?

Was the speaker describing someone else's position? Was the statement rhetorical? Was it part of a larger discussion whose context changes its meaning?

Those questions cannot be answered by a 25-second excerpt alone.

That is precisely why more transparency—not less—is useful.

This Is About Moss's Alleged Words, Not His Jewish Identity

There must also be a firm boundary around this controversy.

Jeremy Moss is Jewish.

That fact is not evidence of divided loyalty.

Jewish Americans should no more be required to prove their loyalty to the United States because of their religion than Muslim, Christian, Hindu or any other Americans should.

The scrutiny here should therefore remain where it belongs: on the recording, the statements contained in it, Moss's denial, the forensic evidence, his documented policy positions and any additional evidence concerning the recording's origin.

If a Catholic candidate were recorded saying the entire purpose of his campaign was protecting the interests of the Vatican, voters could ask questions.

If a Muslim candidate allegedly said it, voters could ask questions.

If a Jewish candidate allegedly said it, voters can ask questions.

The standard should be identical.

Baker Is Putting the Evidence Before the Voters

Baker's approach is ultimately straightforward.

He is directing people to the original short recording and asking them to listen.

He writes:

"Now, the decision rests with the people of the 11th District."

And that is exactly where the decision belongs.

Neither Ethan Baker nor Jeremy Moss should determine what voters are permitted to question.

Voters can listen.

They can examine the forensic findings.

They can read Moss's denial.

They can examine Baker's statement.

They can consider each candidate's documented record on Israel and American foreign policy.

And they can decide how much weight the controversy deserves.

Moss Should Answer the Questions Directly

The controversy can be reduced to several questions that deserve clear answers:

What evidence establishes where the recording originated?

Why did forensic specialists reportedly find no evidence that the audio they examined was AI-generated or edited?

Does a longer version of the recording exist?

What evidence does Moss have supporting his assertion that the recording is false?

If additional context exists, will it be released?

And most importantly, if the disputed statements were ever established as authentic:

Why would a candidate for the United States Congress describe ensuring American support for Israel as the "entire purpose" of his campaign?

Those are not questions about Jeremy Moss's religion.

They are questions about a candidate for Congress.

America Comes First in the Oath of Office

Whoever wins Michigan's 11th Congressional District will not take an oath to Israel.

He will not take an oath to a political party, lobbying organization or foreign government.

A member of Congress takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That doesn't prohibit supporting Israel. The United States has alliances and partnerships around the world, and members of Congress routinely disagree about how those relationships should work.

But American voters are entitled to know how a candidate prioritizes American interests when American and foreign-government interests diverge.

That is the legitimate issue buried underneath months of accusations and counteraccusations surrounding this recording.

Jeremy Moss has denied making the statements.

Ethan Baker is challenging voters to examine the evidence rather than simply accepting that denial.

Now the public deserves as much verifiable information as possible.

Because the ultimate question isn't whether Jeremy Moss supports Israel.

The question is what Jeremy Moss's priorities would be as a member of the United States Congress and whether the disputed recording tells voters anything reliable about those priorities.

Michigan's 11th District voters can examine the evidence and decide that for themselves.

Major Change Coming to Detroit Catholics as Archdiocese Prepares to Reassign Most Priests

 

Sweeping restructuring could move longtime pastors, replace Families of Parishes and reshape Catholic life across southeast Michigan

DETROIT — One of the most significant changes to Catholic parish life in metro Detroit in generations is now taking shape.

The Archdiocese of Detroit is preparing for a large-scale reassignment of priests across southeast Michigan, with most priests expected to move from their current assignments as the archdiocese reorganizes its 209 parishes into a new system of “pastorates.”

The changes will affect Catholic communities throughout Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, St. Clair and Lapeer counties.

Specific priest assignments are expected to be announced during the weekend of April 17-18, 2027, with the new pastorates and assignments beginning July 1, 2027. The broader implementation is expected to continue into 2028. 

For Catholics who have attended the same parish for decades — and in many cases developed close relationships with their pastors — the changes could be deeply personal.

Why Move So Many Priests?

The Archdiocese of Detroit says the sweeping movement of clergy is intentional.

Church officials say they consulted other dioceses that have undergone similar restructurings and were advised that moving priests broadly can help newly created parish groupings begin on more equal footing.

The archdiocese says moving priests also gives Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger and his advisers an opportunity to match individual priests' talents, experience and pastoral strengths with the needs of the newly created pastorates.

There is another concern.

If several existing parishes are placed into one pastorate and one priest remains at his longtime parish while becoming pastor of the larger group, parishioners at his former parish could continue viewing him primarily as their priest. Other communities might consequently perceive the new pastor as favoring his former parish.

The archdiocese believes widespread reassignment can reduce that problem and give the newly formed communities what it describes as a “fresh start.” 

That does not mean every priest will automatically be transferred. Church officials say individual circumstances will be considered, but Catholics should expect significant movement among the clergy. 

A Church Facing a Very Different Reality

Behind the restructuring is a larger problem confronting the Catholic Church in southeast Michigan: the archdiocese simply does not look like it did several decades ago.

According to the Archdiocese of Detroit, the Catholic population it serves has fallen from a historic high of approximately 1.5 million people to about 900,000 today.

Mass attendance and participation in sacraments such as baptisms, first Communions and marriages have also declined.

At the same time, the archdiocese still has buildings, administrative structures and parish organizations developed to serve a considerably larger Catholic population. 

Perhaps even more important is the shrinking number of priests available for parish ministry.

The archdiocese says most of its active priests are now older than 50 and projects that by 2029 fewer than 165 priests will be serving in parish ministry. 

That mathematical reality makes the current parish structure increasingly difficult to maintain.

Families of Parishes Will Eventually Disappear

The restructuring also represents another major shift in how Detroit-area Catholic churches will operate.

The current Families of Parishes model will eventually be retired.

In its place will be pastorates — groups consisting of one or more parishes under a single pastor and leadership structure. Most pastorates are expected to have additional priests serving as parochial vicars, commonly called associate pastors.

The distinction matters.

Under the Families of Parishes system, multiple pastors can share responsibility across a family of churches. Under the new pastorate structure, authority will be more clearly centered on one pastor responsible for the entire pastorate.

Church officials say that structure should simplify administration and allow priests to spend more time celebrating the sacraments, preaching and ministering to parishioners rather than managing multiple administrative systems. 

Some Churches Could Eventually Close or Merge

Priest transfers are only one part of the restructuring.

Every parish in the Archdiocese of Detroit is being evaluated.

That includes healthy parishes, struggling parishes, parishes with schools and parishes with cemeteries. The archdiocese says no parish is automatically exempt from the review. 

Some parish communities could eventually merge, and some church buildings could close or cease offering regular weekend Masses.

However, it is important to distinguish what has already been decided from what remains under consideration.

The archdiocese says decisions about individual mergers and church closures were not predetermined. Officials are reviewing finances, sacramental participation, demographics, parish vitality and feedback from Catholics before final decisions are made. 

Tens of Thousands of Catholics Have Already Responded

The restructuring has generated substantial participation from Catholics across southeast Michigan.

More than 40,000 people participated in parish listening sessions, while more than 17,300 people completed an online survey about the proposed pastorate models.

The archdiocese also says it received thousands of emails and telephone calls containing comments and suggestions. 

That feedback is now being considered as officials refine the proposed parish configurations.

Archbishop Weisenburger ultimately will make the final decisions.

What Happens to Individual Priests?

Every priest is being considered individually.

Priests have been asked to complete a leadership inventory addressing their current assignments, strengths and abilities, preferences about future assignments, priests with whom they would like to serve and the type of ministry to which they believe they are called.

Archbishop Weisenburger and a Priest Missioning Team, which includes priests representing different age groups within the clergy, will use that information along with other factors when determining assignments. 

That means the process is not simply a matter of randomly rotating priests from one church to another.

It amounts to a broad reshuffling of Catholic clergy intended to fit a redesigned map of parish life.

For Parishioners, This Will Be Personal

Statistics explain why the Archdiocese of Detroit believes restructuring is necessary.

But statistics cannot completely describe what the changes will mean inside individual churches.

A pastor is not simply an administrator.

He may be the priest who baptized a family's children, celebrated their weddings, heard their confessions, visited relatives in the hospital and celebrated funeral Masses for their parents and grandparents.

Those relationships sometimes develop over many years.

The archdiocese itself acknowledges that the reassignment process could be difficult because of the strong bonds that develop between priests and parish communities. 

That may ultimately be one of the most challenging aspects of the restructuring.

The Catholic Church teaches that priests are ordained to serve the wider Church rather than a single congregation permanently. But for parishioners, Catholicism is also intensely local — the church where they attend Mass every Sunday, the priest they know and the community with which they worship.

Moving large numbers of priests therefore will not feel like an administrative restructuring to many Catholics.

It will feel like a change in their spiritual home.

A Defining Moment for the Catholic Church in Detroit

Archbishop Weisenburger has described the restructuring around three priorities: vibrant parishes, flourishing priests and a Church that is prepared for its mission in the future. 

Whether the new structure accomplishes those goals will become clearer only after it is implemented.

What is already clear is the scale of what is coming.

The Archdiocese of Detroit is not merely changing a few priest assignments or combining a handful of parishes. It is attempting to redesign its parish structure around the number of Catholics, priests and resources it expects to have in the years ahead.

For hundreds of thousands of Catholics across southeast Michigan, July 2027 could mark the beginning of a very different era of parish life.

The churches may remain familiar.

The people sitting in the pews may remain familiar.

But in many parishes, the priest standing at the altar will be someone new.

The Archdiocese’s official restructuring information and updates are available through its Archdiocesan Restructuring website.

Why Michigan Voters Should Take a Closer Look at Mike Rogers

Michigan voters deciding whether Republican Mike Rogers should represent them in the United States Senate should look beyond campaign slogans and examine the record he developed during his years in Washington.

For voters who value limited government, Fourth Amendment protections, individual privacy and elected officials who remain connected to the state they seek to represent, Rogers' record raises serious questions.

The most significant concern may be his history as one of Washington's strongest defenders of expansive federal surveillance powers.

Rogers, the NSA and Mass Surveillance

Rogers served as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during the height of the controversy surrounding National Security Agency surveillance.

When Edward Snowden's disclosures revealed the massive collection of Americans' telephone metadata in 2013, Rogers did not emerge as a leading critic calling for the federal government to scale back the program.

He defended it.

After the surveillance became public, Rogers and Democratic ranking member C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger issued a statement defending the collection as consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and arguing that the program had helped detect and disrupt terrorism.

That position placed Rogers on the opposite side of an important constitutional debate from another Michigan Republican: then-Rep. Justin Amash.

Amash offered an amendment in July 2013 intended to restrict the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' telephone records.

Rogers opposed it.

The amendment narrowly failed, 217-205.

Afterward, Rogers and Ruppersberger celebrated its defeat, calling the NSA program a "crucial counterterrorism tool" and rejecting accusations that it violated Americans' privacy.

That disagreement matters.

It was not simply a case of Republicans defending national security while Democrats raised civil-liberties concerns. Amash was a Republican from Michigan making a conservative and libertarian argument that government surveillance had exceeded constitutional limits.

Rogers represented the opposing position.

The PATRIOT Act and FISA

Rogers' position on surveillance was not an isolated matter.

The NSA telephone-record program operated under Section 215 authorities associated with the USA PATRIOT Act, while Rogers repeatedly defended the government's interpretation and use of those authorities.

As Intelligence Committee chairman, Rogers also supported the reauthorization of surveillance authority under the FISA Amendments Act.

Supporters argued that these programs were indispensable tools for identifying terrorists and foreign threats.

Civil-liberties advocates saw something more troubling: a federal surveillance apparatus capable of sweeping Americans' communications and information into intelligence databases without the traditional individualized warrant protections many Americans associate with the Fourth Amendment.

Michigan voters should decide which philosophy they prefer.

But Rogers' record on this issue is not ambiguous. When Washington debated whether national-security agencies should retain broad surveillance powers, Rogers repeatedly defended those powers.

CISPA: Government and Corporate Data Sharing

Then there was the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, better known as CISPA.

Rogers was one of the legislation's principal architects.

CISPA was promoted as a cybersecurity measure that would make it easier for private companies and the federal government to exchange information about cyber threats.

The concern was the breadth of those information-sharing powers.

Privacy and civil-liberties organizations warned that the proposal could allow companies to transfer substantial amounts of customer information to the federal government while receiving significant legal protections for doing so.

The controversy was not limited to fringe critics.

CISPA faced opposition from civil-liberties, consumer-rights, conservative and libertarian organizations concerned about Americans' personal information reaching federal intelligence agencies without adequate judicial oversight.

Rogers nevertheless championed the legislation.

There is another dimension to this history that merits scrutiny.

Michigan Advance reported in August 2026 that AT&T, Verizon and wireless-industry association CTIA contributed a combined $95,000 to Rogers-associated campaigns and political committees over roughly two decades. Rogers later worked as a security adviser for AT&T.

Campaign contributions do not, by themselves, establish that a politician changed a vote or drafted legislation on behalf of a donor. It would be irresponsible to make such a claim without evidence.

However, voters are entitled to examine the relationship between corporate political contributions, Rogers' telecommunications-industry connections and legislation facilitating information sharing between government and industry.

The National-Security State

Rogers' supporters can make a legitimate argument in his defense.

He is a former FBI agent who chaired the House Intelligence Committee. He dealt with classified information, terrorism and foreign threats that most Americans never see. His position has consistently been that robust intelligence capabilities are necessary to prevent another September 11.

That argument deserves consideration.

But so does the opposing view.

The Constitution was written in part because government officials will always have reasons to seek additional power. National security does not eliminate the Fourth Amendment.

For constitutional conservatives, libertarians and civil-liberties advocates, the question is not whether Rogers wanted to protect America.

The question is how much government power he was willing to tolerate in pursuit of that goal.

His record provides an answer that should concern defenders of limited government.

Then There Is Florida

Rogers' relationship with Michigan presents a separate concern.

Rogers is unquestionably a Michigander by origin. He is a Livingston County native and represented Michigan in Congress from 2001 through 2014.

But after leaving Congress, Rogers left Michigan.

In 2022, Rogers and his wife purchased a large home in Cape Coral, Florida, for approximately $1.6 million.

The following year, according to Florida property records reviewed by Bridge Michigan, the couple identified that property as their permanent residence for purposes of receiving a property-tax exemption.

That is considerably more significant than merely owning a vacation home in Florida.

Then another U.S. Senate opening emerged in Michigan.

In January 2023, Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow announced that she would not seek another term.

Six months later, in July 2023, Rogers and his wife purchased property in White Lake Township.

The original house was not comparable to their Florida residence.

It was approximately 728 square feet, with one bedroom, and Rogers and his wife paid $295,000 for it.

Rogers did not live in that original house. It was eventually demolished, and a new residence was constructed on the property.

During construction, Rogers said he was staying at his sister-in-law's home in Genoa Township.

The White Lake Occupancy Controversy

The issue became more complicated during Rogers' 2024 Senate campaign.

By October 2024, the newly constructed White Lake house still had not received its certificate of occupancy and therefore could not legally be occupied.

Rogers' campaign said utility and township delays had prevented him and his wife from moving in. The campaign also maintained that they intended to occupy the house as soon as the necessary approvals were obtained.

There was evidence supporting that explanation. A neighbor told CBS Detroit that Rogers and his wife were regularly at the property and that furniture had been delivered.

That context should be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the chronology remains relevant to Michigan voters.

Rogers left Michigan after leaving Congress.

He eventually established a permanent residence in Florida.

He purchased a $1.6 million Florida home in 2022.

Michigan's Senate seat became available.

He purchased the small White Lake property in July 2023.

And he returned to Michigan politics while seeking that Senate seat.

Bridge Michigan reported another noteworthy detail: as late as April 2024, Rogers was reportedly still registered to vote in Florida, although his campaign said he was attempting to cancel that registration.

His Florida registration was subsequently canceled.

The Facts in 2026 Matter Too

Criticism should not become misinformation.

Rogers currently lives in Michigan.

The White Lake house was completed, Rogers and his wife moved into it, and the property now receives Michigan's principal-residence exemption. His Michigan voter registration is active at the White Lake address.

Rogers and his wife also still own the Cape Coral property, although they have been attempting to sell it. Bridge Michigan reported in August that the Florida house was listed for approximately $2.4 million.

Accordingly, the legitimate criticism is not that Rogers is currently an illegal Michigan candidate or that he currently lives in a house without an occupancy permit.

The legitimate question is why and when he returned.

Michigan voters can decide for themselves whether Rogers' return represents a genuine homecoming or a politically convenient return to the state when a Senate opportunity arose.

This Is About More Than Party

That may be the most important point.

Opposition to Mike Rogers does not have to come from the political left.

A limited-government conservative could object to his surveillance record.

A constitutionalist could object to his defense of bulk NSA data collection.

A libertarian could object to CISPA and the government's accumulation of private information.

A populist Republican could question his connections to telecommunications corporations and Washington's national-security establishment.

And a Michigan voter of any political persuasion can reasonably ask why someone who established permanent residency in Florida returned to Michigan when a U.S. Senate seat became available.

Those are legitimate questions.

Mike Rogers has decades of government and national-security experience. His supporters consider that experience one of his greatest qualifications.

But experience also creates a record.

And Rogers' record shows a politician who repeatedly defended powerful intelligence agencies, opposed efforts to restrict NSA bulk surveillance, promoted greater government-industry information sharing and eventually left Michigan before returning to seek one of the state's two most powerful elected offices.

Michigan voters are not obligated to disregard that history simply because another election has arrived.

Before deciding whether Mike Rogers deserves six years representing Michigan in the United States Senate, voters should ask themselves a fundamental question:

Do we want to send someone to Washington who has repeatedly trusted Washington with this much power?

Hillsdale County Sheriff Scott Hodshire Faces Felony Misconduct and Obstruction Charges

 

HILLSDALE, Mich. — Hillsdale County Sheriff Scott Hodshire is facing two felony charges accusing the county’s top law-enforcement official of misconduct in office and obstruction of justice.

A magistrate in Hillsdale County’s 2B District Court authorized a warrant for Hodshire on Aug. 19 following a petition submitted by Detective Sgt. Travis Pohl, according to Michigan court records. Both charges reportedly arise from an incident dated Feb. 18, 2026.

Hodshire was released Monday after receiving a $1,000 personal-recognizance bond, meaning he did not have to deposit money with the court unless he violated the conditions of his release.

The specific conduct behind the charges has not yet been made public. Available court records identify the alleged offenses but do not explain what Hodshire is accused of doing, whose investigation produced the charges or what case he allegedly attempted to obstruct.

That lack of information leaves Hillsdale County residents confronting serious allegations against their elected sheriff without a complete explanation of what supposedly occurred.

Misconduct in office is a particularly significant accusation against a sheriff. Hodshire oversees the Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Office, its deputies and the county jail. He is also entrusted with enforcing the same criminal laws he is now accused of violating.

An obstruction-of-justice charge generally alleges interference with the administration of justice, but its precise meaning depends upon the actions described in the charging documents. Until those documents or a supporting affidavit are released, it would be irresponsible to speculate about the underlying incident.

Hodshire remains listed by Hillsdale County as the county sheriff. It was not immediately clear whether he would continue performing his official duties while the felony case moves forward or whether another official would assume day-to-day control of the department.

No arraignment date had been publicly scheduled as of Tuesday morning. The court proceedings are expected to reveal additional information about the investigation, the evidence supporting the warrant and the actions prosecutors believe constitute misconduct and obstruction.

The charges are allegations, and Hodshire is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. However, the public deserves prompt disclosure of the facts because this is not an ordinary defendant. The accused is the elected official responsible for operating the county’s primary law-enforcement agency and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

The case will now test whether Hillsdale County’s legal system can investigate and prosecute allegations involving its own sheriff with the independence and transparency residents have a right to expect.