Who is Elissa Slotkin, who’s giving Democrats’ response to Trump’s address to Congress?
Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump will deliver a joint address to Congress on Tuesday evening during which he’ll no doubt try to highlight the ways he is delivering on the “mandate” that he and Republicans say they were given by Americans during the 2024 election.
Democrats hope to have a response to that from one of the Senate’s newest initiates: Michigan freshmen Elissa Slotkin.
Slotkin made her name during her six years serving in the House of Representatives as a moderate unafraid to, at times, challenge her party’s conventions. She has promised a rebuttal to Trump’s speech focused on economic and national security.
“I’m looking forward to speaking directly to the American people next week. The public expects leaders to level with them on what’s actually happening in our country,” Slotkin said in a statement announcing her speech last week. “From our economic security to our national security, we’ve got to chart a way forward that actually improves people’s lives in the country we all love, and I’m looking forward to laying that out.”
She is also expected to take on Trump and Elon Musk’s efforts to shrink the size of the federal government. Democrats have invited a number of fired federal workers as their guests for the speech.
Slotkin’s guest will be Andrew Lennox, who served as a Marine in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and was fired from his job with the Department of Veterans Affairs in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
“You spend 10 years trying to defend your country in terms of honesty, integrity, and justice and then you come back and get copy and pasted the same email as 10,000 other people about performance,” Lennox told ABC News.
Slotkin’s speech comes as Democrats look to collect themselves after a punishing 2024 campaign cycle that saw Trump handily defeat then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ bid for the White House. Democrats didn’t fare much better down ballot, losing control of the Senate and failing to recapture the House.
As Democratic leadership tries to zero in on a new strategy to reach moderate voters, they’re looking to beam the spotlight onto Slotkin, who pulled off a narrow win in purple Michigan this November, beating Republican nominee Mike Rogers, who had served seven terms in the House, in a race for the state’s open Senate seat, even as Trump won Michigan by 80,000 votes.
Her focus on reproductive rights and economic issues like lowering costs for families, coupled with her track record in the House, helped her eke out a narrow victory in the Senate race. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries took notice in selecting her to deliver the Democrats’ response.
Schumer called Slotkin a “rising star” of the Democratic Party.
“As you know, Elissa is a rising star in our party. The American people are going to love what she has to say. She’s just great — on both economic and national security. I’m excited, I think we’re all excited,” Schumer said following the formal announcement that Slotkin would deliver the response to Trump.
Slotkin is a former CIA agent who worked as a Middle East analyst. She served three tours in Iraq in this role. She then worked at the White House and Pentagon during the Bush and Obama administrations before launching a bid for the House.
She won her seat in the House of Representatives in 2018, ousting a two-term GOP incumbent. During her tenure, she flexed her national security bona fides, serving on the Armed Services, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs committee.
During her time in the House, Slotkin was consistently ranked among the most bipartisan members of the chamber. She occasionally voted across party lines and, in her earliest votes in the Senate, demonstrated a willingness to continue that bipartisan streak. She was one of 12 Democrats who voted in favor of the Republican-led Laken Riley Act earlier this year, helping to send the bill to Trump’s desk.
(WASHINGTON) — Sixty years after Black Americans gained the right to vote in the United States through the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Sen. Tim Scott on Friday makes history, becoming the longest-serving African American in the 235-year history of the United States Senate. This historic moment will be shared alongside four other African-American senators, making this the largest group of Black senators to ever serve concurrently in the U.S. Capitol, a building constructed with the labor of enslaved Black people.
The previous longest-serving Black senator was the late Republican Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who held office from 1967 until 1979. Scott, the first elected Black senator from the South, is the first to serve in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In his first speech as a freshman senator, Scott said, “I believe in the greatness of America because I have experienced the goodness of our people in America. An ordinary guy like me can be blessed with an extraordinary opportunity like this.”
Born and raised in North Charleston, South Carolina, Scott was raised in a single-parent household after the divorce of his parents. He was a troubled teenager who failed English, Spanish, geography, and civics in his freshman year in High School. He often recalls his close relationship with his grandfather, who was forced to drop out of school in the third grade, picked cotton to survive, and was not allowed to vote for more than half of his life. His grandfather was also unable to learn how to read, only to witness his grandson’s career rise from those humble beginnings in South Carolina to become both a member of Congress and a U.S. senator.
“Our family went from cotton to Congress in one lifetime,” Scott said at the Republican National Convention in 2020.
After serving in the House of Representatives from 2011 until 2013, Scott was appointed by then-South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to the Senate in 2012 after former Senator Jim DeMint left to become president of the Heritage Foundation. Democratic Senator Cory Booker, who was elected in a special election did not join the Senate until months after Scott’s appointment.
In 2024, the Senate will see its highest-ever Black senators serving concurrently. This group includes Sens. Raphael Warnock, Booker, Scott, Angela Alsobrooks, and Lisa Blunt Rochester. Rochester and Alsobrooks will also break barriers as the first two women to serve together in the Senate concurrently.
During his early days in the Senate, Scott occasionally would serve as the only Black person in the Senate. In 2016, following the controversial deaths of Eric Garner, Walter Scott, and Philando Castile he delivered a poignant speech about the deep divide between law enforcement and communities in America. He revealed that, as an elected official, he had been stopped and questioned seven times while driving. Even as a senator, Scott was questioned about his identity by Capitol Police despite wearing a pin identifying himenator.
“While I thank God I have not endured bodily harm, I have, however, felt the pressure applied by the scales of justice when they are slanted. I have felt the anger, the frustration, the sadness, and the humiliation that comes with feeling like you’re being targeted for nothing more than being just yourself,” Scott said in 2016.
As his career extends into the 119th Congress, Scott will make history as the first Black chairman of a Senate standing committee. He will lead the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and will also chair the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the only Black Republican to hold such a position.
Marking the milestone achievement, Scott said in a statement, “My goal is simple: make America work for Americans. As we get to work cleaning up the mess from the previous administration, I look forward to working with President Trump on his priorities, including paving a path for all Americans to have the necessary tools and resources to achieve their version of the American Dream.”
“We will unlock opportunity, strengthen our nation, and make America the shining city on the Hill again,” he added.
(NEW YORK) — President-elect Donald Trump said Monday that the Biden administration knows more about the drones that have raised alarms over parts of the country than it’s sharing with the public.
“They know where it came from and where it went. And for some reason, they don’t want to comment. And I think they’d be better off saying what it is. Our military knows and our president knows. And for some reason, they want to keep people in suspense,” Trump said.
Trump took questions for more than an hour on a number of subjects. He started his remarks with an announcement that SoftBank will make a $100 billion investment in the U.S. that will create 100,000 jobs focused on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. SoftBank plans to complete the work before Trump leaves office in 2029, according to a person familiar with the matter.
TikTok and election results
Asked about a potential ban on TikTok unless it finds new ownership, Trump said he has “a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” because of its effect on his winning a larger share of the youth vote than he did in 2016.
A federal appeals court last week rejected TikTok’s attempt to stop the pending ban and pause the Jan. 19 deadline for a sale.
“TikTok had an impact,” Trump said. “And, so we’re taking a look at it. I don’t know why, but we ended up finishing, we were, there was one poll that showed us down about 30. We were 35 or 36 points up with young people. So I have a little bit of a warm spot in my heart.”
Considering a pardon for Eric Adams
Trump also said he would “take a look” at a pardon for New York Mayor Eric Adams, who was indicted in September on bribery charges.
“I think that he was treated pretty unfairly,” Trump said, and suggested the charges were retribution for Adams speaking out against migrants flooding into the country.
“It’s very interesting when he essentially went against what was happening with the migrants coming in,” Trump said. “And, you know, he made some pretty strong statements like ‘This is not sustainable.’ I said, ‘You know what? He’ll be indicted soon.’ And I said it. That is a prediction, a little bit lightheartedly, but I said it. I said, ‘He’s going to be indicted.’ And a few months later he got indicted. So I would certainly look at it.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and vaccines
Following reports last week that the personal attorney for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, had previously lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to revoke its approval of the polio vaccine, the president-elect said he had no plans to ban the vaccine.
“You’re not gonna lose the polio vaccine. That’s not gonna happen,” he said. “I saw what happened with the polio. I have friends that were very much affected by that. I have friends from many years ago, and they have obviously, they they’re still in not such good shape because of it.”
Trump’s selection of Kennedy, known an anti-vaccine crusader, to lead HHS has raised concerns about what effects his activism might have on the agency’s mission. Trump said Monday those concerns are unfounded.
“I think you’re going to find that Bobby is much — he’s a very rational guy. I found him to be very rational,” Trump said.
“But we’re going to look into finding why is the autism rate so much higher than it was 20, 25, 30 years ago,” he said. “I mean, it’s like it’s 100 times higher. There’s something wrong. And we’re going to try finding that.”
Ending the war in Ukraine
Asked if Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to end the war, Trump didn’t give a straight answer, instead saying cities there are a “demolition site” and there’s “nothing there” for Ukrainians.
“But, a lot of that territory, when you look at what’s happened to those, I mean, there are cities that there’s not a building standing. It’s a demolition site. There’s not a building standing. So people can’t go back to those cities. There’s nothing there. It’s just rubble,” Trump said, hinting that there isn’t a reason for Ukraine to keep the land.
Auctioning off the border wall
While calling the transition from the Biden administration to his incoming one “friendly,” Trump called for a policy change on the border wall, claiming the White House was attempting to auction off border wall material.
“That has nothing to do with a smooth transition, that has to do with people really trying to stop our nation, and all it means really is that we’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more, not even talking about the time,” he said.
“It’s almost a criminal act,” Trump claimed as he lamented that border wall materials are being sold for “5 cents on the dollar.”
A deadline of Israeli hostages
In recounting his discussion on a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump repeated his threat that Israeli hostages held by Hamas and others in the Middle East should be released by Inauguration Day.
“We discussed what is going to happen and I’ll be very available on January 20th,” he said. “And we’ll see. I, as you know, I gave warning that if these hostages aren’t back home by that date, all hell is going to break out and very strong.”
Special counsel Jack Smith’s final report lays out in no uncertain terms federal prosecutors’ position that Donald Trump — who is set to be inaugurated president in less than a week — would have been convicted on multiple felonies for his alleged efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election, had voters not decided to send him back to the White House in the 2024 election.
That was one of the primary conclusions included in Smith’s final report on his election interference investigation, which the Justice Department released early Tuesday morning after a federal judge, late Monday night, cleared the way for the report’s release.
The report lays out the probe that resulted in Trump being charged in 2023 with four felony counts of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The case, as well as Smith’s classified documents case against Trump, was dropped following Trump’s reelection in November due to a longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.
“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” the report said. “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”
After conducting interviews with 250 witnesses voluntarily, calling 55 people to testify before the grand jury, executing dozens of subpoenas and search warrants, and sifting through a terabyte of publicly accessible data, Smith’s team concluded they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed multiple federal crimes when he attempted to overturn the election, the report said.
“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report said.
For the first time, the report shed light on the internal deliberations of the prosecutors who sought to prove that Trump “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort” while navigating the uncharted legal territory of charging a former president.
While prosecutors considered charging Trump with violating the Insurrection Act, Smith wrote that he opted against the approach because of the “litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute.” According to the report, prosecutors worried that Trump’s actions did not amount to an insurrection because he was already in power — rather than challenging a sitting government — when the riot took place. Smith also noted that his office did not obtain “direct evidence” of Trump’s “intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6.”
Smith also noted that the case against Trump presented unique challenges, including Trump’s “ability and willingness” to use social media to target witnesses, courts, and prosecutors with “threats and harassment.” Like any other case involving a conspiracy, prosecutors also expressed concerns about convincing witnesses to cooperate while the defendant still exerted influence and command over his alleged co-conspirators.
“That dynamic was amplified in this case given Mr. Trump’s political and financial status, and the prospect of his future election to the presidency,” the report said.
Despite those concerns, Smith’s report laid out how prosecutors planned to rebut Trump’s expected arguments to secure a conviction, laying out a play-by-play for how a trial would have proceeded had Trump lost the election.
If the former president argued that he acted in good faith when he claimed there was election fraud, prosecutors would present “strong proof” that Trump himself knew his claims of fraud were false. The report noted that Trump repeatedly noted in private how he lost the election, including berating Vice President Mike Pence for being “too honest” to challenge the results, telling his family “you still have to fight like hell” even if he lost the election, and remarking to a staffer, “Can you believe I lost to this f’ing guy?” after seeing Biden on television.
“This was not a case in which Mr. Trump merely misstated a fact or two in a handful of isolated instances. On a repeated basis, he and co-conspirators used specific and knowingly false claims of election fraud,” the report said.
If Trump argued he was following the advice of his lawyers, prosecutors planned to present evidence showing that his lawyers were acting as accomplices to the crime, preventing Trump from legally being able to employ the argument.
And if Trump argued that he was just using his First Amendment right when he challenged the election, prosecutors planned to highlight that Trump employed his statements to commit other crimes, including using false statements to defeat a government function, obstruct an official proceeding, and injure the right to vote.
“The Office was cognizant of Mr. Trump’s free speech rights during the investigation and would not have brought a prosecution if the evidence indicated he had engaged in mere political exaggeration or rough-and-tumble politics,” the report said. “The conduct of Mr. Trump and co-conspirators, however, went well beyond speaking their minds or contesting the election results through our legal system.”
In the report, Smith also detailed multiple interviews with various so-called “fake electors” who he said sought to cast votes for Trump — and admitted they would not have done so “had they known the true extent of co-conspirators’ plans.”
Smith told how investigators obtained Signal messages where “Co-Conspirator 4” — previously identified by ABC News as former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark — sent a message to Rep. Scott Perry saying he had received a highly classified briefing on foreign interference in the 2020 election that “yielded nothing” to support allegations of a stolen election.
“Bottom line is there is nothing helpful to P,” Clark’s message said, according to the report.
The report cites the handwritten notes of former Vice President Mike Pence that the special counsel obtained, about which Smith wrote, “In repeated conversations, day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as President of the Senate to change the election outcome, often by citing false claims of election fraud as justification; he even falsely told Mr. Pence that the ‘Justice Department [was] finding major infractions.'”
Regarding the House select committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the report said that probe only “comprised a small part of the Office’s investigative record, and any facts on which the Office relied to make a prosecution decision were developed or verified through independent interviews and other investigative steps.”
Volume One of Smith’s final report was released to the public early Tuesday after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, following a weeklong court battle, ruled Monday that the Justice Department could release it.
Trump’s former co-defendants in his classified documents case, longtime aide Walt Nauta and staffer Carlos De Oliveira, had sought to block the release of both the classified documents volume and the Jan. 6 volume, but Cannon — who last year dismissed the classified documents case — allowed the public release of the Jan. 6 volume after determining that its contents have no bearing on the evidence or charges related Nauta and De Oliveira in their ongoing case.
After conferring with Smith, Garland determined that he would not publicly release Volume Two pertaining to the classified documents investigation because Nauta and De Oliveira’s cases were technically still on appeal.
In the classified documents case, Trump pleaded not guilty in 2023 to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information. The former president, along with Nauta and De Oliveira, pleaded not guilty in a superseding indictment to allegedly attempting to delete surveillance footage at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
Smith resigned as special prosecutor on Friday after wrapping up the cases and submitting his report to Garland.
