My statement after multiple reports, including video footage, of masked, unidentified law enforcement agents arresting individuals across the country.
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.
From inflation and high input costs, to the cost of labor and visas, to the threat of Canadian tariffs, we must start thinking about food security as national security — and making policy accordingly.
Was glad to meet with the Michigan Farm Bureau to talk about the farm bill and how to address the significant uncertainty they’re facing.
We are using a farm bill that pre-dates COVID — and it badly needs an update. The world of ag has changed significantly since then, and our policies needs to actually work for MI's farmers.
Folks in both parties should call for accountability regarding classified info disclosed over Signal. It's not partisan, it's about the safety of our troops.
If the shoe was on the other foot, and this happened to a Democrat, my colleagues would have plenty to say.
Let's get past the parlor games and remember what happened with these leaked Signal chats. They disclosed classified information that could put lives at stake. Now, Secretary Hegseth needs to man up and admit his mistake -- or resign and stop being a distraction.
Today during the Senate Armed Force Committee I talked about the importance of the Selfridge fighter mission, finding a replacement mission, & I invited Troy Meink, the nominee to lead the Air Force, to visit.
Selfridge has a 108 year history of protecting our nation and I am proud to have it in Michigan.
Classified info was disclosed by Sec. Hegseth in the now infamous Signal chat, and it could have put lives at risk. If he continues to refuse responsibility, he’ll lose credibility with the force, and become a bigger distraction.
If that’s the case, he should resign or Trump should fire him.
One theme across these events: concern and confusion about the economic chaos coming from Washington -- from tariffs to Elon Musk and DOGE -- and the impact it has on their pocketbooks, their jobs and their kids.
Last week I hosted 23 events across Michigan in 7 days. Check out some of my favorite moments from criss crossing across Michigan from my camera roll.
Michiganders know that apples have an emotional connection to the state and culture of Michigan.
Whether it's high input costs, including the cost of labor, or tariffs or USDA cuts, it's clear that regardless of party, we must all work to protect this historic industry and our farmers.
The Secretary of Defense seems to feel no qualms about disclosing classified information on those in harm’s way. If that was his child on that mission, would he simply shrug his shoulders? I think not.
The reason classified info is so sensitive is because it gives our adversaries the date, time, and sequence of U.S. movements in some of the most dangerous and violent parts of the world.
In the discussion of senior officials texting classified info, let’s remember that this issue, at its heart, is about the safety of the U.S. forces deployed, and the families waiting at home for news of their loved one.
I understand that the folks at the White House are the senior-most officials. But they should, as leaders, set an example with their accountability. No one should be able to put US forces at risk without it.
If the DOJ decided to prosecute, the individual would be immediately terminated and arrested, and potentially face fines up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.
They would also likely be reported to the Department of Justice in a “crimes report” for further investigation and potential prosecution, and be reported to Congress if the disclosure caused significant harm or damage to national security.
An individual would immediately lose access to their workspace, all classified info and immediately be put on leave. They would be the subject of an investigation to determine the level of damage caused to national security interests and whether any criminal laws were violated.
On the news that classified info was shared on Signal, I’m watching the White House blame others and shirk responsibility. It’s therefore important to understand what would happen to an ordinary person if they shared classified info on unclassified systems.
Let's break it down.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-38) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-35) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (80-17) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (78-20) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-42) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-01-28 | H.R. 23 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (77-22) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (97-0) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (68-29) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-23) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-34) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-39) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (72-26) |
| 2025-01-22 | S. 6 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46) |
| 2025-01-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (99-0) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Final passage | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Bill Passed (64-35) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Amendment Agreed to (75-24) |
| 2025-01-17 | S. 5 (119th) | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-49) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Amendment Agreed to (70-25) |
| 2025-01-13 | S. 5 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10) |
| 2025-01-09 | S. 5 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 3/5 majority required) |
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.
← PrevPage 17 / 17