Elissa Slotkin headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Michigan
Born
July 10, 1976
Age 49
Phone
(202) 224-4822
Office
291 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan

Elissa Slotkin

Elissa Blair Slotkin is an American politician and former intelligence analyst serving since 2025 as the junior United States senator from Michigan. A member of the Democratic Party, she served in the United States House of Representatives from 2019 to 2025.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 825
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align92%
Cross-party8%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Elissa Slotkin headshot
Elissa Slotkin
U.S. SenatorDemocratMichigan
SoupScore
Elissa's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 20 sponsored · 120 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

We’ve made real, progress on PFAS. It has been a priority for me, including the push for the EPA to set a standard. But the Trump Administration’s rollback of protections to curb these harmful chemicals makes our drinking water less safe. In Michigan, clean water isn’t partisan – it’s our heritage.
There's a lot happening. In my Intel Briefing, we break it down: 1️⃣Medicaid cuts that will spike costs and kick people off their health care 2️⃣Foreign influence from the President's cryptocurrency and accepting a Qatari jet 3️⃣Attacks on the right to have your day in court
Police Week is a pretty impressive show here in DC, and this time I got some time with the Detroit Police Lieutenants and Sergeants Association. We discussed strengthening the force and how mental health calls put a strain on law enforcement and other first responders.
The Trump Administration’s rollback of protections to curb harmful forever chemicals will make our drinking water less safe. My statement on the weakening of federal PFAS clean water rules. ⬇️
The President is taking a $400 million foreign gift from Qatar. Beyond that, there is the sheer security risk of letting a foreign country deliver Air Force One, one of the most sensitive assets we have.
I had *just* met with a big group of Syrian-Michiganders last week when the news of sanctions relief was announced. Now the Syrian diaspora, anchored by a strong and successful community in Michigan, is ready to help start a new chapter in Syria, and help support recovery and reconstruction there.
Thank you to the federal law enforcement who prevented this attack. This is a reminder that the threat of terrorism on U.S. soil is very real, and protecting our bases in Michigan from hostile drone attacks in particular needs to be a priority. www.detroitnews.com/story/news/l...
The idea that a foreign country would have access, as the buyer, during production, leaves it incredibly vulnerable to bugs, tracking devices, and whatever else they or other countries may attempt to manipulate.
On Air Force One, the president discusses sensitive intelligence and pending operations, makes critical decisions, and, as on 9/11, it's used as an emergency command and control center for urgent military decisions.
It was a serious and drawn-out investigation: files were seized, staff were questioned, and it took years to resolve. All for fear that a foreign government would have undue influence over a mid-level Pentagon official. Now the President is taking a $400 million foreign gift.
Case in point: When I was at the Pentagon, I was the point of contact for the FBI as they investigated a mid-level official for accepting gifts, including allegedly a motorcycle, from Qatar, and failing to report them.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
825 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 49 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Defeated (49-49)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 75 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-46)
2025-04-29H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (83-14)
2025-04-29End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-13)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-36)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-36)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-39)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (67-29)
2025-04-28End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (64-27)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (60-25)
2025-04-11End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-25)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (59-26)
2025-04-11End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-25)
2025-04-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-46)
2025-04-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-10H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-44)
2025-04-09H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-42)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (60-37)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-04-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-04-08End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-32)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-04-07End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-39)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (5-94)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)

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 13 / 17Next →