POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: Did Mike Rogers Receive Donations from People in Epstein Files? A Comprehensive Investigation
The Claim A viral claim circulating on social media platforms such as X, Threads, and Facebook alleged that Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, had received...
The Claim
A viral claim circulating on social media platforms such as X, Threads, and Facebook alleged that Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, had received nearly $4.7 million in donations from individuals who appeared in the files related to the federal investigation of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The claim gained traction after being shared by both online users and Rogers’ Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, suggesting that these donors were somehow connected to Epstein’s criminal activities.
The claim specifically targeted Rogers, implying that his campaign was indirectly benefiting from the financial networks associated with Epstein. Some posts even suggested that at least seven of his donors had direct ties to Epstein. The source of the claim was traced back to a report published by the progressive news outlet Detroit Metro Times, which accurately titled its piece, ‘Donors named in Epstein files gave nearly $4.7 million to Mike Rogers and groups backing him.’ However, the original post did not clarify the nature of these connections or the legal status of the donors.
The Details & Investigation
Upon closer examination, it became clear that the claim, while technically accurate in stating that Rogers and affiliated groups received significant contributions from individuals listed in the Epstein files, lacked critical context. The majority of the funds came from Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder and CEO of Blackstone, who donated $4.5 million to a super PAC supporting Rogers during the 2024 Senate campaign. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, Schwarzman also contributed smaller amounts directly to Rogers’ campaign committees, including $13,600 to ‘Rogers for Senate’ and $7,000 to ‘Team Rogers,’ a joint-fundraising operation.
While Schwarzman’s name appears frequently in the Epstein files, there is no evidence he had any personal or business relationship with Epstein. An email exchange cited in the files suggests that Epstein may have referenced Schwarzman in a casual manner, but no documents confirm they met in person. A spokesperson for Schwarzman stated that it would be ‘categorically false and grossly irresponsible’ to imply any connection between him and Epstein. Additionally, an invitation to a 2015 cocktail party—mentioned in the files—was reportedly extended through a PR firm, not directly by Schwarzman.
📄 POLICY WIRE WHITEPAPER PUBLISHED: PAKISTAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY PRIORITIES
Other donors identified in the Epstein files included figures such as Ronald Lauder, Peter Rowan, and John Childs, each of whom had varying degrees of documented interaction with Epstein. For example, Lauder and Rowan were involved in correspondence and events with Epstein, but there is no evidence they knew of or participated in his crimes. Similarly, John Childs was mentioned in the files in the context of real estate deals and a 2019 prostitution sting, though he denied any wrongdoing and later had his charges dropped. None of these individuals were found to have directly supported Rogers’ campaign; instead, their donations primarily went to independent PACs.
being named in the Epstein files does not equate to guilt or complicity in Epstein’s crimes. The files contain a mix of mundane business communications, public records, and unverified allegations, many of which are unrelated to criminal activity. Furthermore, the distinction between direct campaign contributions and those made to independent PACs is crucial in understanding the nature of the funding. While the claim may be true in terms of the amount of money involved, it misrepresents the extent of the donors’ potential knowledge or involvement in Epstein’s activities.
The Verdict
The claim that Mike Rogers received $4.7 million from individuals in the Epstein files is largely true in terms of the factual data presented. However, the implication that these donors were knowingly or intentionally associated with Epstein’s criminal activities is misleading. The evidence shows that most of the funds came from individuals who were merely listed in the files, often due to professional or social connections, rather than any direct involvement in Epstein’s crimes.
Therefore, this claim falls under the category of MISLEADING. It presents a partially accurate statement without providing the necessary context about the legal and factual status of the donors. While the donations themselves are legitimate and legally permissible, the way the claim was framed—suggesting a deliberate or malicious association with Epstein—constitutes a form of disinformation. The lack of evidence linking these donors to Epstein’s crimes, combined with the legal structure of campaign financing, underscores the need for careful scrutiny of such claims.
Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).
