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?

Mike Cox Exits Michigan Governor's Race, Leaving Perry Johnson as John James' Remaining GOP Challenger

LANSING, Mich. — Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has suspended his campaign for governor, narrowing the Republican primary to a head-to-head contest between U.S. Rep. John James and businessman Perry Johnson.

Cox announced Friday that he was ending his campaign following President Donald Trump's endorsement of James, saying the endorsement significantly changed the dynamics of the race. He also said he intends to support James in the general election.

Cox's departure comes as Perry Johnson has continued to build support among many grassroots Republicans, positioning himself as the remaining outsider in the race. With the Republican field now consolidated, Johnson becomes the sole major challenger to James and will seek to capitalize on voters looking for an alternative to the establishment-backed campaign.

A successful entrepreneur and longtime advocate for government reform, Johnson has argued throughout the campaign that Michigan Republicans—not endorsements or political insiders—should ultimately decide the party's nominee at the ballot box. His campaign has focused on issues including reducing government spending, lowering taxes, supporting law enforcement, and expanding economic opportunity.

Cox, who served two terms as Michigan attorney general and previously sought the governorship in 2010, thanked Michigan voters for allowing him to serve as a Marine, prosecutor and attorney general, describing public service as the most rewarding experience of his career.

Johnson, who narrowly missed qualifying for the 2022 Republican gubernatorial primary after thousands of petition signatures submitted by multiple campaigns were ruled invalid, has since rebuilt a statewide political organization and returned to the campaign trail with renewed support from many Republican activists.

With absentee voting underway and the Republican primary drawing closer, the race now becomes a direct contest between James, backed by President Trump's endorsement, and Johnson, who is betting that a strong grassroots organization and outsider message can resonate with Republican voters across Michigan.

Michigan Revokes Antrim County Clerk’s Access to Voter Roll Amid Escalating Election Integrity Dispute

ANTRIM COUNTY, MI - A growing dispute between state election officials and Antrim County Clerk Victoria Bishop reached a new level this week when the Michigan Bureau of Elections suspended Bishop’s access to the state’s Qualified Voter File (QVF), citing what officials described as repeated violations of Michigan election law.

The move follows months of controversy surrounding Bishop’s efforts to review and alter voter registration records in Antrim County, a county that became nationally known after the 2020 presidential election due to claims of election fraud.

In a letter sent Friday, Michigan Director of Elections Jonathan Brater informed Bishop that her access to the statewide voter registration database was being revoked after a state review found she had taken actions that "do not comply with Michigan Election Law and fall outside the scope of your statutory authority."

Under Michigan law, responsibility for maintaining voter registration records belongs primarily to city and township clerks. County clerks have limited authority to access the system and may only make certain changes under specific circumstances, such as reporting deceased voters.

State officials allege Bishop exceeded that authority by directly altering voter records and sending registration notices to voters without proper authorization.

State Alleges Unauthorized Voter Registration Changes

The conflict dates back to March, when Bishop mailed notices to approximately 1,800 Antrim County voters asking them to verify their registration information. The county has roughly 25,000 residents, meaning the notices reached a significant portion of registered voters.

The Bureau of Elections contends those mailings should have been handled by local township and city clerks, not the county clerk's office.

According to reporting by Interlochen Public Radio and Votebeat, Bishop also changed the voter registration status of several residents to "cancel" within the Qualified Voter File. Journalists reviewing state records identified at least six voters whose registrations were changed to canceled status, while additional reports suggested more than a dozen modifications may have occurred.

Bishop has denied wrongdoing and has argued that she was elected with a mandate to clean up Antrim County's voter rolls.

Throughout her campaign for county clerk, Bishop frequently claimed the county's voter rolls contained deceased individuals and voters who no longer lived in the county. She promised to restore election integrity and remove ineligible registrations.

However, local clerks have challenged her claims.

Banks Township Clerk Julie Chellis previously questioned the methodology used to identify the voters targeted by Bishop's review, noting that some individuals on the list were active voters, including younger residents and absentee voters who were legally registered.

"The list doesn't make sense to me," Chellis said in earlier reporting. "There are people that are voting absentee, as we speak."

State Warned Bishop of Possible Criminal Consequences

The Bureau of Elections first formally warned Bishop in April that her actions were outside her legal authority.

In a strongly worded letter, Brater told Bishop that elected officials do not possess unlimited authority simply because they won office.

"You do not have unlimited authority to conduct any action you see fit simply because you were elected to office," Brater wrote.

The state demanded that Bishop stop altering voter records and provide explanations regarding changes that had already occurred.

According to reports, Bishop initially failed to properly respond to the state's inquiries. Election officials said responses were either incomplete or sent to incorrect email addresses and failed to answer key questions regarding which voter records had been modified and why.

The latest suspension order requires Bishop to complete election training, demonstrate compliance with Michigan election law, and fully answer the state's questions before her access to the Qualified Voter File can be restored.

Investigation Also Involves Husband's Access to Clerk's Office

The controversy has expanded beyond voter registration changes.

Michigan State Police have been investigating an incident involving Bishop's husband, Randy Bishop, a conservative radio host known throughout Northern Michigan as "Trucker Randy."

According to a state police report obtained through public records requests, a county employee observed Randy Bishop alone inside a secure section of the clerk's office on February 19 while Victoria Bishop attended a county commission meeting elsewhere in the building.

Investigators reported that Randy Bishop was using Victoria Bishop's office computer to watch a livestream of the public meeting.

The clerk's office contains access to election-related systems, including the Qualified Voter File.

The Bishops told investigators that Randy was merely waiting for an important phone call and wanted a quiet place to watch the meeting. Both denied that he accessed voter registration records or other sensitive election data.

Victoria Bishop told investigators that her husband did not know her login credentials and had not independently accessed her computer.

The Michigan Attorney General's Office has confirmed that the investigation remains ongoing.

No criminal charges have been filed against either Victoria or Randy Bishop.

Political and Legal Tensions Continue to Escalate

The dispute has become increasingly political.

Randy Bishop has used his radio program to defend his wife and criticize Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and state election officials. During several broadcasts, he denied that Victoria Bishop improperly removed voters from the registration rolls and promoted efforts to raise money for potential legal action against the state.

At one point, fundraising efforts were launched to support a lawsuit against Benson and election officials, though no lawsuit ultimately appears to have been filed.

Reports indicate only a few hundred dollars were raised before the fundraising effort was removed.

No Expected Impact on Upcoming Elections

Despite the suspension, election officials say voters should not experience disruptions ahead of Michigan's August primary elections.

Antrim County Deputy Clerk Annette Marcus continues to have access to the Qualified Voter File, and most voter registration maintenance is performed by township and city clerks rather than county officials.

State officials also say they have worked with local clerks to restore any voter registrations that may have been improperly altered.

Still, the dispute has intensified scrutiny of election administration in Antrim County, a jurisdiction that has remained at the center of election integrity debates since 2020.

With investigations ongoing and state officials continuing to review Bishop's actions, the controversy is likely to remain a major issue heading into the 2026 election cycle.

Questions Mount Over John James' Use of Taxpayer-Funded Advertising Amid Michigan Governor Bid

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Congressman and gubernatorial candidate John James is facing renewed scrutiny after a formal complaint alleged he used taxpayer-funded congressional advertising to reach voters far outside the district he was elected to represent, raising questions about whether public resources were used to support a statewide political campaign.

The complaint, highlighted Monday by the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Cox, alleges that James' congressional office spent taxpayer funds on YouTube advertisements targeting viewers throughout the Detroit media market, including residents in multiple congressional districts that James does not represent.

According to the complaint, the advertising campaign extended well beyond Michigan's 10th Congressional District and may have been designed to bolster James' statewide name recognition as he pursues the governor's office.

The allegations have intensified criticism surrounding James' handling of legislation commonly referred to by opponents as the "Kill Switch" issue. Critics contend James previously voted in favor of legislation they argue could have paved the way for vehicle-monitoring technology mandates before later attempting to publicly distance himself from the issue.

The Cox campaign accused James of using taxpayer-funded communications to rehabilitate his image on the controversial matter.

"Michigan families work too hard to have their tax dollars turned into John James' personal campaign slush fund," Cox said in a statement announcing the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that James' congressional office spent more taxpayer money reaching voters across the broader Detroit media market than communicating directly with constituents inside his own district. If proven, such activity could raise questions about whether official congressional communications were being used primarily for constituent outreach or for broader political purposes.

Campaign finance and congressional ethics rules generally prohibit the use of taxpayer-funded resources for campaign activity. While members of Congress routinely communicate with constituents using official funds, critics argue that communications timed alongside a statewide campaign can create the appearance of political self-promotion, particularly when advertisements reach audiences outside a member's district.

Adding to the controversy are claims that James' congressional office used taxpayer-funded advertising to promote his opposition to policies connected to the so-called "Kill Switch" debate after critics had already begun attacking his voting record on the issue.

The Cox campaign characterized the advertisements as an attempt to repair political damage while shifting the cost to taxpayers.

The allegations arrive at a critical moment for James, whose gubernatorial campaign has already faced questions about fundraising, campaign organization, and his record in Congress. A former U.S. Senate candidate who lost two statewide races before winning election to Congress, James entered the governor's race with significant name recognition but also substantial political baggage from previous campaigns.

At the center of the latest controversy is a broader question that voters may ultimately decide: whether taxpayer-funded communications were used to inform constituents or to strengthen a statewide political campaign.

As of Monday, no public ruling had been issued regarding the complaint, and James' campaign had not announced any reimbursement of taxpayer funds related to the advertisements in question.

The controversy ensures that questions surrounding James' use of public resources—and his handling of the "Kill Switch" issue—are likely to remain a focal point in Michigan's increasingly competitive gubernatorial race.

Michigan Governor Race Rocked by Signature Failures as Two Candidates Face Removal From Ballot

 

The race for governor in Michigan took a dramatic turn this week after state election officials recommended that two gubernatorial candidates be disqualified from the August primary ballot over invalid petition signatures.

According to a report released Wednesday by Michigan’s Bureau of Elections, Democratic candidate Kim Thomas and Republican candidate Ralph Rebandt failed to submit the minimum number of valid signatures required to qualify for the Aug. 4 primary election.

The findings now place both campaigns in jeopardy and could significantly reshape the political landscape heading into one of Michigan’s most closely watched gubernatorial races in years.

State law requires gubernatorial candidates to submit at least 15,000 valid signatures from registered voters, including at least 100 signatures from voters in half of Michigan’s congressional districts.

Election officials said the problems uncovered during random signature sampling were severe enough to recommend both candidates be removed from the ballot entirely.

For Thomas, the numbers were staggering. Bureau staff reportedly found only 60 valid signatures in a random sample of 750 signatures reviewed. To pass the threshold for ballot qualification, at least 626 valid signatures were required from that sample. Thomas had submitted nearly 18,000 signatures overall, but the sample review suggested a catastrophic invalidation rate.

Rebandt’s campaign fared better but still fell short. Election staff determined only 533 signatures in his 750-signature sample were valid, below the required 618 needed for qualification. Rebandt submitted more than 18,000 signatures statewide.

The recommendations are not final yet. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet May 28 in Lansing to determine whether it will formally adopt the Bureau of Elections’ recommendations and disqualify the candidates from the ballot.

The controversy immediately reignited concerns about Michigan’s petition process, which has been plagued in recent election cycles by fraudulent circulators, invalid signatures, and major ballot access scandals. Michigan voters may remember the chaos surrounding the 2022 gubernatorial race, when several high-profile Republican candidates were removed from the ballot after investigations uncovered widespread forged petition signatures tied to professional circulators.

This latest controversy, however, affects candidates from both parties — a development likely to intensify scrutiny over how campaigns collect, verify, and submit nominating petitions.

Meanwhile, several other gubernatorial candidates survived challenges to their signatures.

On the Republican side, John James and Perry Johnson successfully cleared signature challenges and were deemed to have sufficient valid petitions.

Other candidates who passed review included Jocelyn Benson, Chris Swanson, Aric Nesbitt, and former Attorney General Mike Cox.

If the Board of State Canvassers upholds the recommendations next week, the Democratic primary field would narrow to Benson and Swanson, while the Republican field would consist of James, Johnson, Cox, and Nesbitt.

The disqualifications would mark a devastating blow to both Thomas and Rebandt, whose campaigns now face a rapidly shrinking path forward as Michigan’s election season accelerates toward the August primary.