Senator Slotkin Discusses Lawfare and Its Implications

Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) delved into the complexities of ideologically-driven lawfare in a recent talk at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics on October 13. She mentioned her desire for “signature cases” targeting not only President Trump but also “the people who enabled him.” What stood out was her explanation of the underlying message she aimed to convey:

I want young people coming out of school to say, “Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, that sounds like fun. I might get an opportunity.” I want them to be like, “Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.” I want that deterrence message sent.

That’s a striking acknowledgment from a current U.S. senator.

Slotkin’s supporters assert she was only referring to those who break the law. But I mean, do we really need a “deterrence message” aimed at graduates regarding crime? We already have the criminal code for that. What Slotkin appears to be suggesting is that the job itself should become toxic for potential applicants. The targets of her deterrent messaging seem to be young, aspirational professionals, rather than those already facing convictions.

Moreover, a congressional investigation can inflict damage long before any judicial verdict. Think about it: subpoenas start rolling in, legal bills pile up, and careers hit a snag. A young staffer who’s innocent might still end up fighting a legal battle that leaves them financially devastated. Often, the only assistance available is from a pricey, well-connected lawyer who might say, “I’ll represent you, but only after you secure a legal defense fund to cover my hourly fee.”

Slotkin, being a former CIA analyst, seems to be blending some political flair with a strategy for future scenarios. In previous discussions, I’ve noted that some on the left view MAGA as a kind of cult. This perception expands blame and scrutiny to include ordinary staffers whose only “crime” was working alongside the administration. It seems Slotkin is preemptively preparing the public for possible actions against such individuals. Now that she’s drawn criticism, she appears to be trying to clarify her original statements.

It’s noteworthy that Slotkin has potentially muddied the waters regarding the legitimacy of lawfare. In the Supreme Court case Watkins v. United States, it was established that Congress doesn’t have the authority to “expose for the sake of exposure.” Investigations are meant to serve legislative aims, not to punish political adversaries. There are valid reasons for those limits.

Slotkin’s comments give people cause to reconsider the true purpose of congressional investigations. Her aim seems to be impressing upon young people that the threat of legal action should discourage them from entering government service. If her allies decide to misuse subpoenas to target individuals based on their associations rather than real misconduct, every defense attorney will have her own declarations to reference. No amount of press office clarification is going to erase that revelation.

If the other senators had any sense, they’d advise her to retract her statements. But they probably won’t. To be honest, I’m kind of glad she said it.