In Michigan Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed’s attack on Mike Rogers’ 9/11 record needs context

In the lead-up to the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed said his U.S. Senate opponent consistently opposed funding for 9/11 first responders.

Initially, El-Sayed said Republican former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers voted twice to deny healthcare to first responders. After Rogers called the statement a “lie,” El-Sayed responded on X. 

“Turns out you didn’t vote to deny 9/11 first responders healthcare twice,” he said. “You did it NINE times.” The post included a screenshot of a Sept. 12 Detroit Metro Times article with the headline, “Mike Rogers opposed 9/11 responder health care not twice, but nine times.”

You’re right. Sorry. Turns out you didn’t vote to deny 9/11 first responders healthcare twice. You did it NINE times. https://t.co/5XVlIMZzgP pic.twitter.com/I8vUT8fkAH

— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) September 12, 2026

When we asked El-Sayed’s campaign about his post, a spokesperson pointed us to the article’s reporting on Rogers’ voting record.

In a statement provided by his campaign, Rogers said 9/11 one of the worst days in U.S. history and called El-Sayed’s suggestion that Rogers doesn’t support the victims is “patently false.” 

“In Congress, I proposed and advocated for an annual $150 million appropriation to support the needs of 9/11 survivors and victim families,” Rogers said.

Rogers opposed the 2010 bill that created the World Trade Center Health Program and dedicated billions in funding for 9/11 first responders, but the nine-vote tally El-Sayed described is missing context. 

The attacks come as Rogers has said El-Sayed “believes America deserved 9/11,” a claim we rated Pants on Fire.

The 2010 first responders healthcare bill

Healthcare funding for 9/11 first responders and victims emerged after years of advocacy and a patchwork of programs before the 2010 James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act created a unified World Trade Center Health Program.

The law, which passed under Democratic-led chambers in Congress, approved $4.3 billion in funding for victim compensation, health monitoring and treatment for 9/11 first responders and victims.

Rogers voted against that bill on the House floor on two separate occasions, as well as in committee and during other procedural measures — a total of nine votes. On the final House passage, three days before Christmas in 2010, Rogers was one of 89 Republicans and 79 Democrats who didn’t vote.

Rogers said at the time he opposed the proposal because of its high price tag, and because it locked in a funding rate over many years instead of requiring yearly approval from Congress. The House bill Rogers voted against initially called for $7.4 billion in funding over 10 years, before it was cut to $4.3 billion over five years on final passage.

“Like every member of this committee, I fully support the 9/11 health program and believe the federal government has a responsibility to take care of first responders and survivors,” he said during a 2010 Energy and Commerce Committee meeting, according to a transcript. “But I also believe that we should not create an entitlement program.” 

Rogers proposed a smaller option that would have codified the existing 9/11 first responder health programs and allocated $150 million a year to them, subject to annual congressional approval.

Ben Chevat, former chief of staff for U.S. House Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the lead sponsor on the Zadroga bill, said mandatory funding was necessary to take care of first responders long-term. 

Funding through annual appropriations, as Rogers proposed, “is short term and uncertain from year to year, depending totally on the priorities of the Congress and the Executive Branch at any point in time,” said Chevat, now executive director of 9/11 Health Watch, an organization that advocates for 9/11 victims and first responders. “There is no guarantee that it will continue.”

Rogers’ other votes

Those two votes are clear examples of Rogers opposing the landmark bill that guaranteed long-term health funding for 9/11 victims. The seven other votes are where the argument gets shaky. 

One is a 2003 vote against a motion to add $90 million in funding for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program for 9/11 first responder health, along with $3.5 billion in general first responder grants. That motion didn’t pass, but Rogers later voted yes on another spending bill that same year, which dedicated $90 million from FEMA for long-term health monitoring for 9/11 first responders. 

The campaign also referenced a 2007 vote against a broad budget bill that included $50 million in 9/11 first responder funding, and a later vote against overriding the president’s veto. That bill wasn’t focused only on 9/11 healthcare funding; it also funded the Health and Human Services, Labor and Education departments. Rogers opposed the bill’s final passage, but he voted yes twice on earlier versions of the bill that included similar 9/11 victim healthcare funding.

The other votes include: 

• A procedural vote against considering the Zadroga bill.
• A vote for an amendment to the Zadroga bill that would shut down funding if it increased the national debt.
• A vote against advancing the Zadroga bill out of committee.
• Support for a motion to send the Zadroga bill back to committee with instructions to reduce the funding.

Rogers’ campaign also referred us to largely unanimous House votes he joined shortly after the 9/11 attacks to provide recovery assistance, federal benefits for public safety officers, tax relief for victims and families and air transportation safety. 

Counting procedural votes and votes on broad spending bills, that adds up to nine votes against and three votes in favor of healthcare funding for 9/11 first responders, plus four votes for 9/11 relief immediately after the attacks.  

Our ruling 

El-Sayed said Rogers “voted to deny health care” to 9/11 first responders “nine times.”

Rogers opposed the signature bill that funded healthcare, monitoring and compensation for 9/11 victims and first responders. And he opposed funding amendments and budget bills that included funds for 9/11 first responders at times.

But the broader accusation takes some votes out of context and ignores other votes in favor of support for 9/11 responders. He voted at least three times for legislation that included 9/11 healthcare funding, and four other times for 9/11 recovery and benefits for victims.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.