Slotkin Accuses Trump Administration Of 'Weaponizing' FBI

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 11/25/2026) (INKSTER) – U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly) today accused the President Donald TRUMP administration of “weaponization” for using the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the military to probe a video she and five other Democratic members of Congress made last week about troops not needing to follow "illegal orders".

Speaking to Michigan media Tuesday, Slotkin said the FBI's Counterterrorism Division appeared to open an inquiry into the six members of Congress as the Department of Defense seeks to investigate former military officer and U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

“The CIA has been talking about me and I think it's just a different avenue for the same thing, which is the weaponization of the federal government against people you disagree with," she said. “No matter what political leaning you're from, you shouldn't use the arms of the government to go after someone you just disagree with.”

U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan)

Slotkin met reporters at the Inkster Fire Department. Earlier in the day, she met with western Wayne County mayors and dropped into the fire station to make the point that 80% of the station's medical runs were for Medicaid patients. If the planned Medicaid cuts go through in 2027, “how do they get reimbursed? How does the money come into the fire department?” she said.

After that piece of business, Slotkin went into the nationally-covered back-and-forth with the President on her video. She then answered six reporters' questions.

Q. Is there any concern that your video was a violation of 18 USC 2387, interfering with the loyalty and morale of troops.

A. “No, we restated what's already in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's clear . . . From Nuremberg through Vietnam through the Iraq War, we've had folks in uniform who have been asked to do things that are illegal and have pushed back. It's not a new concept. We were restating something that's been in law since World War II.”

Q. Why now? Military actions in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific have been going on for a while. The roundups by Homeland Security and ICE have been going on for a while. Is there any legality that all of a sudden you all felt you had to speak up?

A. "Two things. One, we are seeing more uniform military being sent into cities, an increasing number of cities. By the way, the deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. just last week was ruled illegal by the courts, and they're having to leave by Dec. 11, so this isn't theoretical.

But then, also, for those of us on the Armed Services Committee, many of us have been trying to get answers about these strikes in the Caribbean, trying to understand which groups we are in conflict with. Show me the intelligence packages that are helping you go after these guys. I did some targeting against Al Qaeda in the Iraq War. I'm open to the fact that these are probably bad guys. Let's go after them. Show your math . . .

So, for me, it wasn't one incident, it was the sheer number of people coming to us saying, 'I'm worried. I'm being sent to Los Angeles or Chicago. I'm concerned that I'm going to be asked to do something that I don't know I should do.'"

Q. When you hear the President say, ‘seditious’ in regards to your video and “punishable by death” and a bomb threat at your family home, what goes through your mind?

A. "I just don't think this is the America that we want. This is not the political system that best represents who we are. Michigan knows this better than anybody. My dad was a lifelong republican. My mom, a lifelong democrat. When we were growing up, you could disagree, and it could still be good natured. Now, things have become so polarized.

Leadership climate is set at the top. So, it was immediate. The minute I saw the president say we should be hanged, I knew that our security situation was going to change precipitously.

Obviously, I'm worried about my family. I'm worried about my staff. I've served three tours in Iraq. I've done dangerous things. I signed up for this, but my family did not. My nieces and nephews did not. And so, of course, I think first and foremost about physical safety, but I don't think this represents who we are, and I refuse to believe that this is the new normal."

Q. Can you talk a little bit about, with as much specificity as you can, the service members who are approaching you with concerns?

A. "They're saying things to me like, ‘Hey, I’m being called up, …,  and I hear that we may be going to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or we may be asked to do things in law enforcement. What if I'm asked to detain an American citizen helping ICE? Is that legal? Is that not? What if I'm asked to do crowd control and things get violent? I'm not trained in police tactics. I'm trained to protect against a foreign attack.' . . .

So, a lot of concern about domestic deployments, and then certainly I've heard from people saying, ‘Hey, I’m taking part in these operations in the Caribbean and around Venezuela, and I'm not sure if this is legal.' The advice is always to go see your judge advocate general's (JAG) officer, your military officer, the legal officer of your unit and express that and talk to them.

Coming from the intelligence community, we're trained with such a clean, red lie that we don't collect on the United States. We don't engage with American citizens. We're about foreign threats. Our military is trained in protecting us from foreign threats."

Q. Everyday people may listen to the President say that the video was seditious or that it was treason. What would you say to those everyday Americans?

A. "People disagree with me every single day. Does that mean that I should be investigated by the FBI and the president of the United States? Is it an appropriate response to suggest someone be hanged and then knowingly make people less safe? I would never do that to someone else who I vehemently disagree with.

There are people here in Michigan who I disagree with every single day, but I would never wish that they'd be threatened. I would never do anything that I thought would increase their risk of being hurt. I would try to be as judicious as possible if I were the commander in chief, knowing how influential that voice is."

Q. Can you talk about Sen. Mark Kelly, the threats to recall him as a military officer?

A. "It's just a different way to weaponize the federal government. He's a former officer, so they have different inroads into him. Certainly, the CIA has been talking about me, and I think it's just a different avenue for the same thing, which is the weaponization of the federal government against people you disagree with . . .

Also, the president was looking to distract from a lot of bad news last week. The president had the Epstein files sent to his desk which he now has to release after years of fighting against that. Then the jobs report came out and we continue to have higher unemployment. There are a lot of reasons why the president wants to be talking about this rather than something else, but to me, whether it's through the FBI counterterrorism unit, which is amazing to me, or the military, it's just different ways that this president is weaponizing the federal government.

No matter what political leaning you're from, you shouldn't use the arms of the government to go after someone you just disagree with."