Skip to main content
Back to brief

Politics · October 18, 2026

GOP Sen candidate Mike Rogers breaks with Trump over Russia sanctions — as retiring lawmakers lash president

Part of: Michigan Senate: El-Sayed vs. Rogers →
3 sources →

In late October 2026, Michigan GOP Senate candidate Mike Rogers and other Republican lawmakers expressed public disagreement with President Trump's decision to waive sanctions under the Graham Act. The sanctions, intended to target Russia and buyers of its oil following the invasion of Ukraine, were waived by Trump citing national interests and a desire to lower fuel costs. While Rogers stated he would have voted for the sanctions, he partially defended the president’s efforts to reduce diesel prices. Concurrently, Rogers faced intense questioning on CNN regarding his campaign rhetoric against Democratic opponent Abdul El-Sayed, leading to disputes over the candidate's family history and media coverage.

Read the original coverage

Reported across the spectrum

  • President Trump waived sanctions and duties under the Graham Act, which targets Russia and its oil and gas importers.
  • Mike Rogers, the GOP Senate candidate in Michigan, publicly stated he would have voted for the Russian sanctions legislation.
  • Trump's waiver was issued citing the 'national interests of the United States.'
  • Mike Rogers appeared on CNN's 'State of the Union' with Dana Bash to discuss these issues.

Reported by only some outlets

  • Republican Senator Kevin Cramer also criticized the waiving of sanctions, calling it 'capitulating to a bully.'
  • Senators Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, and Representative Don Bacon, have publicly criticized the waiver.
  • Trump reached a deal allowing Russia to sell diesel products to global markets to address fuel shortages.
  • Ukrainian President Zelensky described the decision as a betrayal.
  • Abdul El-Sayed's campaign stated that independent fact-checkers have debunked Rogers' claims regarding El-Sayed's family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

CadNews does not determine absolute truth or endorse political viewpoints. It compares publicly available reporting, identifies shared facts, highlights framing differences, and flags uncertainty.