Mr. Pulte has weaponized his current agency against the President's critics, he's fired federal watchdogs looking into his allies and he is under active investigation by the Government Accountability Office.
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 — 844
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 · 22 sponsored · 122 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
As someone who helped set up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I oppose elevating Bill Pulte to Acting Director. He has no experience. Zero. And he is the wrong choice to help keep us safe.
If you believe President Trump is backing down from his $1.8 billion slush fund, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Senate Democrats - Schiff CA, Slotkin MI, and Kelly AZ unveil a bill to block the Trump anti-weaponization fund.
The President wants to set up a $1.8 billion slush fund with taxpayer money for people he thinks have been wronged.
Today, we introduced a bill to stop it.
youtu.be/3v9ScR-L8FQ
WATCH NOW: Slotkin, Schiff, Kelly to Hold Press Conference on Drain the Slush Fund Act to Block Trump’s Corrupt Payouts, Prevent Abuse of DOJ Settlement Fund
www.youtube.com/live/nkIvnsg...
including those convicted of crimes related to the insurrection on January 6, 2021.
Watch here: www.youtube.com/live/nkIvnsg...
Today, I’m joining Senator Adam Schiff and Senator Mark Kelly to introduce the Drain the Slush Fund Act, new legislation that would effectively shutter President Trump’s so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund and prevent taxpayer dollars from being paid to the President or his allies
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Senate Democrats are launching a coordinated effort to kill the Trump administration's $1.7+ billion "anti-weaponization fund."
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan is among those leading the Drain the Slush Fund Act.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Senators Adam Schiff of California, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan introduced the “Drain the Fund Act,” which they said would block taxpayer dollars from being funneled to Trump and his allies. trib.al/AdXxdhy
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are crying out for the President to focus on the economy and lowering their costs. My colleagues should join us on this bill to prevent even more corruption, and re-assert themselves as a co-equal branch of government. www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-we...
From his ballroom to his son's cryptocurrency, to insider trading and selling pardons to the highest bidder -- Trump has used the govt as a piggybank. This so-called $1.7 billion anti-weaponization fund is an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money, and it must be stopped. Our bill does just that.
Millions of Americans are losing their healthcare or paying more for their healthcare. All because President Trump needed to pay for a tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy.
There should be a federal investigation into the hundreds of millions of dollars in well-timed bets in the oil futures market. We need transparency and accountability.
There’s nothing like going to a baseball game on a nice, spring night in Michigan, cheering on the Traverse City Pit Spitters. Also got to present a challenge coin to Spitters General Manager Jacqueline Holms and the Traverse City Coast Guard Commander Ryan Hawn. Let’s go, Spitters!
Huge congrats to Grand Valley State University for winning the NCAA Division II Men's Track and Field National Championship! You earned it.
gliac.org/news/2026/5/...
The view from Mackinac Island never disappoints.
With new threats on the rise, the fighter mission at Selfridge plays a vital role in defending the entire country. A lot of good bipartisan work got us here, and this will have a generational impact for Michigan, our national defense and Macomb County’s economy.
You never know who you’ll run into on the Mackinac ferry!
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History844 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
844 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 313 (b)(1)(D) of the CBA Re: Amdt. No. 2401) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 302(F) of the CBA Re: Murray Amdt. No. 2771) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 2446) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 313(b)(1)(D) of the CBA Re: Cornyn Amdt. No. 2705) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (56-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 302(F) of the CBA Re: Amdt. No. 2414) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Blunt Rochester Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-06-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 302(F) of the CBA Re: Amdt. No. 2696) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Reed Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Lujan Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair H.R. 1 | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Amdt. 2360 to H.R. 1 (No short title on file) | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-28 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-06-27 | S.J. Res. 59 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 59 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-40) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (61-35) |
| 2025-06-23 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-33) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-46) |
| 2025-06-17 | S. 1582 (119th) | Final passage | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Bill Passed (68-30) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-40) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-39) |
| 2025-06-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-33) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Amendment Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307) | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (45-52) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 54 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 53 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-41) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-41) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
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.