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?
