Republicans are holding TSA and other agencies paychecks hostage because of ICE. Let’s set ICE aside while we negotiate, and fund everything else today.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan
Elissa Slotkin
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align92%
Cross-party7%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Elissa Slotkin
U.S. SenatorDemocratMichigan
SoupScore
Elissa's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 28 sponsored · 131 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
President Trump ran on lowering your costs. But costs are up across the board, and his top legislative priority? To make it harder for Michiganders to vote with the so-called SAVE Act.
I break it down. www.youtube.com/live/RDcQ098...
Today, I took to the Senate floor to try to pass funding for TSA.
My Republican colleagues said no. They are holding all the other Homeland Security agencies hostage because of ICE.
Set ICE aside while we negotiate reforms. Fund everything else today.
youtube.com/shorts/5cmjP...
AI shouldn’t be used to spy on Americans.
AI shouldn’t be used in deadly autonomous weapons without a human in the loop.
This is just common sense.
youtube.com/shorts/pzbZy...
There needs to be fundamental reform of ICE. The public is crying out for that.
The American people have seen this movie before in places like Iraq and Afghanistan — and they do not support it. And it’s why these issues of war of peace must be debated publicly in front of the American people.
And now, three weeks later, the consequences are coming home: 13 U.S. servicemembers dead and hundreds more injured, huge cost hikes on things like gas and fertilizer, and a cycle of military escalation that has no end in sight.
Tonight, I voted again to support a war powers resolution that would stop President Trump's war of choice in Iran.
The President and his Administration started this war by failing to communicate any clear objective to the American people.
The war in Iran is having a direct impact on Michiganders. They are feeling it in their pocketbooks. The price of gas is up. The last thing I saw when I left to fly back to Washington from Michigan was a 90-minute line for gas at Costco because it's so much cheaper.
The Secretary of Homeland Security is quite literally at the fulcrum of some major issues we're dealing with as Americans, like the role of law enforcement and ICE in our streets.
On both lines of questioning, Senator Mullin didn't get there for me.
I am a no.
If we ever get to the point where you are being asked to put armed ICE officers at polling locations, we have lost the plot as a country.
youtube.com/shorts/7nH65...
President Trump stated that if his party doesn’t win, the elections are rigged.
The Secretary of Homeland Security plays a key role in protecting America's elections.
Senator Mullin did not vote to certify the 2020 election, and he still cannot commit that Trump lost.
The American people are crying out for reform to ICE.
People watched as U.S. citizens were killed in the streets for protesting. They saw children tear-gassed and people randomly pulled out of their cars because they looked like they could be immigrants.
youtube.com/shorts/aDCO4...
My bill puts common sense limits on AI at the Department of Defense. It ensures a human is involved when deadly autonomous weapons are fired and that AI cannot be used to spy on the American people.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
NEW: Sen. Elissa Slotkin introduces a bill to regulate the Pentagon’s use of AI, an opening salvo in how Congress might address the military's use of the technology.
To win the future, you need a plan. The Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) commission will work across government, academia and industry to strengthen our national security, protect workers, and boost advanced and robotics manufacturing in Michigan and across the nation.
AI is going to shape the future of America’s national security, and we must win the AI race against China. But to do that, we need action that puts limits on AI in the Department of Defense. This is just common sense.
Congress is behind in putting left and right limits on the use of AI at the Pentagon. My bill ensures a human is involved when deadly autonomous weapons are fired, AI cannot be used to spy on the American people, and that a human is on the switch to launch nuclear weapons.
Four lives were lost, and 20 people were injured after a tornado ripped through SW Michigan. We owe it to them and their families to understand how this tragic event unfolded and what changes are needed to protect public safety and save lives during extreme weather events.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.