THE APEX TIMES
Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens said her last-minute endorsement decision for Republican Mike Rogers was a personal choice and described the move as a single-vote matter, as her party’s campaign criticized the change.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan defended her surprise endorsement of Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s Senate race, telling reporters in Detroit that she was “not turning [her] back on Democrats” despite abandoning her earlier support for Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed. The comments came after Stevens made the endorsement switch shortly before the Nov. 2026 election, according to reporting from multiple outlets.
Stevens said the decision was “this one vote” and framed it as a private choice. “It’s my personal and private decision,” she said, adding that she “still love[s] the party,” according to The Hill’s report of her remarks. In the same account, Stevens positioned the endorsement as her way of choosing a candidate in a specific contest rather than indicating a broader realignment.
The endorsement shift drew attention inside Democratic politics because Stevens had previously backed El-Sayed, and her late change put her at odds with the party’s standard line in a key battleground state. The Guardian also reported that Stevens had endorsed Rogers after having supported El-Sayed, highlighting how the timing of the switch became part of the public dispute.
NBC News reported that Stevens discussed the move and the reasoning behind it in a separate video segment. The network account also treated the endorsement as a late development and focused on how Stevens explained her choice in the context of her Democratic identity.
The endorsement switch also prompted reactions beyond Michigan. The Washington Times reported that President Donald Trump praised the decision and characterized Stevens’ endorsement as “very brave,” though the report framed Trump’s comments as his reaction to Stevens rather than as part of any official federal action.
While Stevens’ explanation emphasized the personal nature of the decision, the episode underscored the sensitivity around last-minute endorsements in closely watched Senate races, where party-aligned donors, volunteers, and voters can react quickly to changes in high-profile backing. The competing campaign narratives also illustrated how individual lawmakers’ endorsement decisions can become a focal point for broader messaging in national and state-level politics.
For voters, the practical effect of Stevens’ endorsement is its potential to influence attention and persuasion efforts in the final stretch of the campaign, particularly among constituents who trust Stevens’ judgments. The next steps are largely campaign-driven: the race continues under each candidate’s public platform, with Stevens’ endorsement standing as an unusually direct break from her prior support for El-Sayed.
