Former Representative Amash argues Mike Rogers poses a greater threat to liberty than Abdul El-Sayed

Former Representative Justin Amash has weighed in on the contentious U.S. Senate race in Michigan, declaring that Republican candidate Mike Rogers would be significantly more dangerous to the country than Democratic challenger Abdul El-Sayed. Amash, who announced on Monday that he did not cast a ballot for either candidate, shared his analysis in a series of posts on the social media platform X. He emphasized that while he holds major disagreements with both men, and neither candidate particularly likes him, he refuses to vote for what he describes as the lesser of two evils.

Amash explained his voting philosophy by stating that he only supports a candidate if he truly wants that person to hold the office. Following this principle, he revealed that he had already voted but did not select Rogers or El-Sayed. However, he asserted that determining which candidate would be more dangerous in the Senate is a clear-cut matter in his view. He noted that it is not even close who poses the greater risk to the institution.

To support his argument, Amash drew a comparison between El-Sayed and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Amash pointed out that Sanders shares many views with El-Sayed and has publicly supported the Michigan candidate in this race. Amash suggested that Sanders could serve as a stand-in for El-Sayed when assessing potential threats to American freedom. He acknowledged that several of Sanders's key proposals are, in his opinion, exceptionally bad for the nation. Nevertheless, he argued that the structure of the U.S. government prevents Sanders from enacting and enforcing those specific ideas.

In contrast, Amash described Rogers as extraordinarily bad on the specific issues where an individual member of Congress might hold the deciding vote. He listed war powers, surveillance, privacy, freedom of speech, criminal justice, and government oversight as the critical areas of concern. Amash contended that in the real world, rather than the imaginary realm of partisan pundits, Rogers poses a far greater threat to individual liberty and the Constitution than Sanders. He further claimed that Sanders is actually much better on these specific issues than the median member of Congress.

Amash concluded that it is fair to view El-Sayed as a politician who will mostly follow in Sanders's footsteps on policy. Therefore, he believes El-Sayed will be far less dangerous in practice than Rogers. He added a parenthetical note to clarify that while El-Sayed will likely do many things that are bad, the primary question is whether he is better on the whole than Rogers, not whether he is entirely good.

The campaigns for both Rogers and El-Sayed did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital on Tuesday. The contest is widely watched, with Rogers holding the endorsement of President Donald Trump. The race has seen significant movement, including an endorsement from Representative Haley Stevens, D-Mich., who lost the Democratic primary to El-Sayed this year. Stevens endorsed Rogers on Sunday, a move that has shaken up the general election dynamics.

Amash served in the U.S. House of Representatives from early 2011 until early 2021. During his tenure, he voted to impeach President Donald Trump in late 2019. While he served most of his time as a Republican, he switched to Independent status in 2019 and subsequently to the Libertarian Party in 2020. His political journey includes losing the 2024 Republican Michigan U.S. Senate primary to Rogers. Rogers went on to lose that year's general election to Democrat Elissa Slotkin, who was a House lawmaker at the time.

The current Senate race represents a rematch of sorts for Michigan voters, who are now choosing between Rogers and El-Sayed. Amash's comments add another layer of analysis to the debate, focusing on the practical implications of each candidate's voting record on specific constitutional issues. His stance highlights the complex calculations faced by voters who may not fully align with either major party nominee. The race remains a focal point for national attention as election day approaches.