For months, I have been clear: If you want my vote, we have to do something to address the cost of health care. We can open the government today with a simple, one-year extension of healthcare.gov subsidies to keep Michiganders' health care from spiking before Jan 1.
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.
This is the longest shutdown in history. I am working to try and bring this to a resolution, but we need the President to get in the game. To be clear, I am insistent on fighting for people facing as much as a 600% increase in health care costs.
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.
What does it mean if your name is on this secret list? What’s going to come after you?
From blueberries to asparagus, Michigan farms produce specialty crops that feed our nation and the world. My bill protects our food supply by ensuring that America's specialty crop farmers are getting a fair deal. www.michiganfarmnews.com/sen-slotkin-...
Erin is a single mom and small business owner in Wexford County. She shared her story about how the loss of financial help on her healthcare.gov plan will impact her and her kids, resulting in a $200 a month increase.
Last month, I started the tradition of holding my first constituent coffee here in DC. These serve as an opportunity for my staff and I to hear directly from Michiganders in the U.S. Capitol. If you are ever in Washington, visit www.slotkin.senate.gov/contact/cont... and stop by!
Americans have an internal barometer for things that sound and smell authoritarian.
Jodie from Northern Michigan is going to be directly impacted by the loss of subsidies on her healthcare.gov plan. She sent me this video telling her story.
In 2026, a Detroit couple making $85,000 combined will see their premiums on their healthcare.gov plan go from $728 per month to $2186 per month.
Share your story: slotkin.senate.gov/letters
President Trump has been talking about a third term. The constitution is clear, but I have learned to take his musings seriously.
Cleaning up PFAS isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It’s about our water and our kids. Talk to the people on the ground in Oscoda and Grayling. If you can’t swim in the lakes, if you can’t drink the water, it feels like something has been stolen from you.
I want to make sure the bureaucracy is not holding back the President’s timeline to bring F-15EXs to Selfridge.
A woman from Kalamazoo logged into healthcare.gov and discovered her premiums will increase by 600%. Going from a little over $100/month to $720/month.
She told me she may have to forego health insurance this year.
Share your story: slotkin.senate.gov/letters
The President has all the authority he needs to pay SNAP benefits out today. A federal court ordered him to do it over the weekend. Now, he’s saying the quiet part out loud: he’s choosing to withhold food and use hungry kids as a political weapon. www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/p...
There wasn’t much that came out of this deal with China other than to just set us back to where we were on the day Trump was inaugurated.
17 General Officers have been removed or have retired in nine months. I'm a former CIA officer – if I saw this in a foreign military, we would call that a purge.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
I want to be perfectly clear. SNAP does not have to expire. There's a contingency fund for SNAP that was set up to prevent this. The Trump Administration could solve this today. Instead, they are using food as a political weapon.
Trump has laid out a whole lot of enemies that are American citizens. And if he’s willing to use lethal force against enemies abroad, what’s stopping him from using lethal force against his enemies at home?
That question should chill every American to the bone.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-25 | — | 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) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 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 | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
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.