Amash: Rogers ‘More Dangerous’ in Senate Than El-Sayed

Former Rep. Justin Amash says he did not vote for either candidate in Michigan’s U.S. Senate race, but he argues that Republican Mike Rogers would be “more dangerous” in the Senate than Democrat Abdul El-Sayed. Amash’s reasoning is narrow and specific: he says Rogers is worse on the issues where a single senator can cast a deciding vote, such as war powers, surveillance, privacy, free speech and government oversight.

What happened

Amash, who announced Monday that he had already voted and chose neither Rogers nor El-Sayed, laid out his case in a thread on X. He said he rejects voting for “the lesser of two evils” and supports a candidate only if he genuinely wants that person in office.

To compare the two, Amash used Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as a stand-in for El-Sayed, noting that Sanders has endorsed El-Sayed and that the two share many views. Amash said several Sanders proposals would be “exceptionally bad” for the country, but argued Sanders is in no position to enact them given how the government is structured.

Rogers, by contrast, is “extraordinarily bad” on the issues where an individual member of Congress can be the deciding vote, Amash wrote. He concluded that El-Sayed would likely follow Sanders’s approach on policy and therefore be “far less dangerous in practice” than Rogers, while stressing that he still expects El-Sayed to do many things he considers bad.

Rogers, the Republican nominee, has Trump’s endorsement. Neither campaign responded immediately to requests for comment from Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

Why it matters

The race is closely watched nationally because it could help decide control of the Senate. Amash’s statement is notable because it comes from a former Republican who lost the 2024 GOP Senate primary to Rogers, and who voted to impeach Trump in 2019. His endorsement of neither candidate, combined with his ranking of the two, may carry weight with libertarian-leaning and anti-Trump conservative voters in Michigan.

His argument also illustrates a specific theory of Senate power: that a lawmaker’s influence is greatest on procedural and civil-liberties votes rather than on broad ideological proposals that rarely reach a floor vote. This suggests Amash is weighing conduct in office over campaign platforms.

Key facts at a glance

What this means for you

• If you are a Michigan voter who leans libertarian or independent, Amash’s argument gives you a framework for weighing the two candidates on civil-liberties votes rather than party labels.
• His position is not an endorsement of El-Sayed; he explicitly says El-Sayed would do “many things that are bad.” Treat it as a comparative judgment, not a recommendation.
• Cross-party endorsements are shaping this race on both sides, with Stevens backing Rogers and Sanders backing El-Sayed. Expect more of these signals before Election Day.

Frequently asked questions

Did Justin Amash endorse Abdul El-Sayed?

No. Amash said he did not vote for El-Sayed and described him as someone who would do many bad things. He only argued El-Sayed would be less dangerous than Rogers.

Why does Amash compare El-Sayed to Bernie Sanders?

Amash said Sanders shares many of El-Sayed’s views and has endorsed him, so Sanders serves as a stand-in for judging how El-Sayed would behave in the Senate.

What is Amash’s political background?

He served in the House from 2011 to 2021, mostly as a Republican, switched to Independent in 2019 and to Libertarian in 2020, and voted to impeach Trump in 2019. He lost the 2024 GOP Senate primary to Rogers.

What to watch next

Whether either campaign responds to Amash’s remarks, and whether his argument shifts support among Michigan’s independent and libertarian voters in the final stretch of the race.