In my weekly Intel Briefing, we dive into three important topics that might have flown under your radar:
1️⃣ The President's proposal for a 50-year mortgage
2️⃣ Military movements around Venezuela
3️⃣ Alarming changes at the Dept. of Justice
youtu.be/BxNr3z2RC-8
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan
Elissa Slotkin
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 830
Yes35%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align92%
Cross-party8%
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 · 21 sponsored · 120 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The events in Dearborn this week are an example of the state of our national politics — and how Michiganders can respond differently. 3/3
That organizer proceeded to hold a press conference and apologize and urge out-of-state protestors to go home.
Dearborn's rich diversity of faith, culture and people makes Michigan stronger. And while the national climate is setting a bad example, Michiganders are doing things to rise above it. 2/3
Earlier this week, we had an anti-Muslim demonstration, preaching hate in Dearborn. A counter-protest soon formed. Elected leaders responded with clarity.
Leaders from some of the very mosques being protested reached out and welcomed one of the anti-Muslim organizers in for a dialogue. 1/3
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
WATCH: "If the President is saying you should be hanged, then we shouldn't be surprised when folks on the ground are going to follow suit and say even worse," says Sen. Elissa Slotkin on Trump amplifying calls to hang six Democratic lawmakers.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Slotkin: "This is a really bad week for Donald Trump on the Epstein files. He's been fighting this for a long time. He doesn't want to be talking about that."
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Slotkin: I’m not going to be dissuaded from standing up for the Constitution just because he threatens us. I’m not going to let him intimidate us out of speaking our minds.
Earlier this morning, President Trump threatened me and a group of service and veteran Members of Congress with arrest, trial, and death by hanging.
Here’s my response:
"This is a time for moral clarity. In these moments, fear is contagious, but so is courage. We will continue to lead and will not be intimidated.
Don’t Give Up the Ship!”
“But this isn’t about any one of us. This isn’t about politics. This is about who we are as Americans. Every American must unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence.
“What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution & obligation to follow only lawful orders. It's not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.
“We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation.
Read the joint statement from myself, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Representatives Jason Crow (D-CO-06), Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH-02), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA-06):
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
In recent weeks, U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin has led the call to curb President Donald Trump’s executive powers, with U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Birmingham) on Tuesday joining Slotkin in calling for an end to the presidential pardon.
Story from @kdavidsonjrn.bsky.social
The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security should agree to testify on domestic deployments. It is a fundamental issue to who we are as Americans. No matter where you land on the issue, transparency shouldn’t be seen as a threat.
This is not a hypothetical exercise:
During protests in 2020, President Trump wanted the 82nd Airborne sent to Washington, D.C., to, in his words, “shoot them in the legs."
It’s crazy when young officers up and down the chain are seeking legal cover so they don’t get sued one day for what could be illegal strikes.
This is the law. Passed down from our Founding Fathers, to ensure our military upholds its oath to the Constitution — not a king. Given Stephen Miller is directing much of a military policy, he should buff up on the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don’t give up the ship.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History830 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
830 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-38, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-14 | S. 331 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (84-16) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-40) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-39) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-03-13 | S. 331 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-15, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-41) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (78-19) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-20) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (67-32) |
| 2025-03-06 | S. 331 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-12, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-30) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-03-05 | S.J. Res. 28 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-47) |
| 2025-03-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-05 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 28 (119th) | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 3 (119th) | Approve resolution | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Joint Resolution Passed (70-27) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 3 (119th) | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-03 | S. 9 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-27 | H.J. Res. 35 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 12 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 10 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-52) |
| 2025-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (54-44) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
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.