Not only will these cuts hurt SNAP recipients, but they’ll hurt grocery store union members, who rely on their business.
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 — 789
Yes34%
No63%
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 · 117 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
I had a heartfelt conversation with folks from UFCW in Lansing about the impact SNAP cuts could have on shoppers nationwide—especially when their benefits lapse or they lose eligibility altogether. These arbitrary cuts are bad for MI and will leave more people hungry and struggling.
My statement on General Motors announcing a $4 billion investment, including at the Lake Orion plant.
Watch my full Intel Briefing here: youtu.be/ntyPiSWE-jk?...
Watch my full Intel Briefing here: youtu.be/ntyPiSWE-jk?...
President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" makes you pay more for health care, or you lose it.
How President Trump's tax plan benefits the wealthy.
Trump has been talking about this since Project 2025 came out.
So since January, I've pressed Trump nominees about these very issues: politicizing our military, sending in the Guard against the wishes of a sitting Governor, and upholding our Constitution.
Watch for yourself.
Learn more about how the President's bill will impact you here: budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/...
No President has the right to use the uniformed military in a way that violates the Constitution and taints the apolitical military. Whether you’re a supporter of the president or not, everyone should be concerned that major lines on the use of force are now being crossed.
(P.S. — President Trump's order yesterday is not limited to CA. It authorizes the deployment of the National Guard nationwide.)
This deployment of the National Guard is a dangerous step towards misuse of the U.S. military in our streets. This Administration has been looking for excuses to invoke the Insurrection Act, to use the U.S. military against Americans. That’s their playbook, and we should be clear-eyed about that.
This is not hypothetical. During President Trump's first term, he asked the Pentagon to deploy active duty 82nd Airborne troops to DC to put down peaceful protests and the National Guard flew helicopters extremely low over protestors.
The military is trained to carry out high-intensity foreign combat, like house-to-house counterterrorism operations. And they do that exceptionally well. But this does not always translate to things like crowd control and urban policing, which can escalate quickly if not properly trained.
Third -- and connected to the above point, our troops are not trained in law enforcement tactics. The Secretary of the Army reaffirmed this fact to me during his nomination hearing in January.
We know this from experience in Michigan. In 1967, the National Guard was deployed to Detroit in response to protests at our then-Governor’s request. It made the violence worse, and the scars are still there 60 years later.
Second -- the U.S. military is one of the most trusted institutions in America. Using them at home in law enforcement roles is the fastest way to kill that trust.
It's hard to make the case that this deployment is about public safety instead of politics, when law enforcement leaders did not request the military to intervene.
First -- Our troops are intended by law to protect America from foreign adversaries, never to advance one party's political agenda. This is what separates American democracy from places like Chinese communism.
I worked at the Pentagon and the CIA for Democratic and Republican presidents. This kind of action should send a chill down the spine of anyone concerned about protecting the apolitical military, and minimizing an escalation of violence in our streets.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History789 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
789 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-46) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (77-23) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 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 16 / 16