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.
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 — 830
Yes35%
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 · 21 sponsored · 120 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
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.
Elon Musk is looking for $6T in cuts, and the math doesn’t work without going after the health care and retirement people have worked for their entire lives for.
In Flint, Congresswoman McDonald Rivet and I held a public event for folks who are scared, worried, and just plain angry about the potential cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
michiganadvance.com/2025/03/19/i...
I was so glad to visit GM Flint Assembly, where they take incredible pride in producing more than 50 trucks an hour!
I talked to leaders about the importance of the jobs here in Flint and ensuring everything we do in Congress strengthens our auto industry.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
In Flint, Slotkin and McDonald Rivet call for pushback against Trump cuts to social safety nets
michiganadvance.com/2025/03/19/i...
Tariffs can be an important tool, but we can’t treat Canada like China, and this will-they-won’t-they bit creates instability and unpredictability for our businesses and farmers.
Today I joined the Detroit Chamber and the Consul General of Canada in Detroit for a discussion on the economic ties between Michigan and Canada. No state will be impacted more than Michigan in a trade war with Canada. www.detroitnews.com/story/busine...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History830 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
830 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 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) |
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.