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.
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.
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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
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.
Page 1 / 16Next →