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.
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 — 825
Yes36%
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 · 20 sponsored · 120 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
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.
If these were regular soldiers or a civilian CIA officer like I was, they would be reprimanded, likely fired, prosecuted and possibly jailed.
But this Administration believes they are above the law — and seemingly don’t care what US forces and US operations they put at risk.
For years, I locked up my phone every day b/c it wasn't safe to bring it into an office where we handled and talked about classified docs. Everyone who does classified work knows this. So do the people on this group chat, many of whom have railed against breaches of security.
We also know that China, Russia, and Iran are constantly trying to hack the phones of everyone in that group chat. This is why we have a whole separate computer network to handle classified information.
Laws like the Espionage Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Records Act lay out clear rules for how you can handle classified information — and those laws apply to every one of the people on that text chain.
This is all classified information. Even the fact that they were considering this strike is classified. And for good reason: the time and method of an attack, if intercepted by our enemies, could have gotten American troops killed.
They shared details on specific targets U.S. troops would try to hit, and what specific weapons they would be using.
That’s a problem even before they accidentally looped in a journalist.
Our most senior government officials -- including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, and National Security Advisor -- planned a military strike via group chat on Signal, an unclassified texting app.
I've worked at the White House for both Democrat and Republican Presidents and I've never seen this kind of mishandling of classified info. It's sloppy at best and puts the military involved in these sensitive operations at risk.
Let me explain why. 🧵
Last week I held a town hall with farmers in Sparta on the west side of our state.
What I heard: The threat of a trade war with Canada and cuts to USDA will make it harder for our farmers to survive.
www.mlive.com/news/grand-r...
The threat of a trade war with Canada and significant USDA cuts adds even more variables into the equation, particularly for our specialty crop farmers.
I held a farmers town hall on the west side of our state, and one thing is clear: the math for farmers isn’t working. Input costs are going up and profits are going down, making it harder for farmers to survive, and pass on their farms to their kids.
But just like President Trump’s attempt to repeal the ACA a few years ago, these cuts aren’t a done deal. We need to hear from individuals, groups, and organizations on the impact should these cuts go through, and push back.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History825 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
825 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-16 | S. Con. Res. 22 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62) |
| 2025-09-16 | S.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2025-09-15 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-10 | S. 2296 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-09-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-43) |
| 2025-09-04 | S. 2296 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-02 | S. 2296 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-23) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | — | — | Nomination Confirmed (72-22) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-35) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-42) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (78-17) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-19) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-41) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (81-15) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (21-75) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (15-81) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (14-81) |
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.