Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin has been sounding the alarm about creeping authoritarianism, warning of military forces on U.S. streets and extrajudicial killings on the high seas. Now, following a military raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, those warnings feel newly urgent. Slotkin joins us to discuss what the Maduro operation reveals about presidential power, and what Congressional oversight mechanisms are available.
Guests:
Elissa Slotkin, U.S. Senator representing Michigan; member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services
This partial transcript was computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Mina Kim: Welcome to Forum. I’m Mina Kim. Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin has been sounding alarms about the Trump administration’s campaign in Venezuela long before the president’s military raid that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
Slotkin, who served three tours of duty in Iraq as a CIA analyst and worked in national security roles at the Pentagon, called the raid part of the signature trend of Trump’s presidency — quote, “relentless focus on foreign entanglements and looking tough abroad so as to distract from what’s happening to Americans’ pocketbooks.”
Senator Slotkin joins me now. Welcome to Forum.
Elissa Slotkin: Thanks for having me.
Mina Kim: So Senator, you’ve just received a briefing from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among other top administration officials, all about the situation in Venezuela. I understand it’s classified, but what can you tell us?
Elissa Slotkin: Well, look. First and foremost, it was a long description of the sophisticated operation that was involved. So separate from the politics of this, the military did a truly incredible job at pulling this thing off.
But then we had lots of questions, as you can imagine, about what happens the day after — what happens now. Particularly someone like me, who served in places like Iraq — you know there can be big celebrations when something goes right at the beginning, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s where we’re going to end up.
And I think there was a lot of discussion and a lot of questions — not a lot of answers — on what comes next. A lot of questions about the oil.
President Trump has been, frankly, much more transparent than President Bush ever was on the issue of oil and going after Venezuela because of the oil. He’s made no secret of that. So what does that mean? Are we going to have U.S. forces protecting folks in the oil industry? Facilitating oil executives? What is the nature of our support to that?
Lots of questions. Fewer, thinner answers.
Mina Kim: Yes — interested in what assurances you were seeking from that briefing and whether or not you got them. But also your reaction to statements that the president and his energy secretary have made — the president saying that Venezuela will turn over 30 to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S., which will be controlled by him with regard to proceeds, and the energy secretary saying the administration would indefinitely run oil sales.
Elissa Slotkin: Yeah. I mean, look — I think this is a pretty different view of foreign policy than American presidents on both sides of the aisle have typically taken. This is a very transparent financial interest in this country — and looking tough. I think the power projection is important here for the president.
And I said it back in that speech you were quoting, and I believe it even more firmly today: this president has gone into military operations in nine different parts of the world — seven countries and two oceans — more than any single president in history in their first year. And this was the guy who literally ran on “no forever wars,” “no more foreign entanglements.”
I think the entire thing is just a big hand-wave for him to look tough and look like he’s commander-in-chief because he has no game domestically. He has no plans on things like housing or health care or inflation.
So you can imagine there were also lots of questions about other places around the world he’s been signaling interest in — Cuba, Colombia, Greenland. What kind of military planning is going on for these places?
And if you’re sitting at the Pentagon — or frankly, just an American citizen — you’ve got to believe him when he starts talking about a country over and over again. You’ve got to believe that he is absolutely willing to use military force to take what he wants out of those countries.
So it’s a very different doctrine — foreign rather than domestic.
Mina Kim: Are you okay with that? You’re on the Armed Services Committee. What levers, if any, do you feel like can be pulled right now?
Elissa Slotkin: Obviously, no — I’m not okay with it. Certainly someone like me who has spent time in war zones.
My experience on the Armed Services Committee is that you’ve got a number of folks on both sides of the aisle who are very serious about national security issues. But my Republican colleagues have all but abdicated their oversight responsibilities. They have basically thrown their hands up and said, “You know what? It’s okay that we haven’t had a single public hearing on Venezuela and the strikes in the Caribbean. It’s okay that we don’t have accountability over the president on national security matters as called for in the Constitution.”
They have abdicated that role.
And I think about what John McCain would be doing if he were back as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He must be rolling over in his grave — one, because of this foreign adventurism and the money we’re spending on these engagements, but also the absolute shriveling of the Senate’s role.
So no — I’m not okay with it. But Republicans control the House and Senate, and they chair these committees. And I can’t make them stand up and own their constitutional responsibilities.
Mina Kim: You answered my next question, which was whether you sensed a red line from your colleagues across the aisle. And it sounds like your answer is no.
Well, Senator, in October you said you were “popping a flare” about authoritarianism — specifically warning about certain U.S. military tactics this administration was using in its boat strikes that could be turned inward and used domestically. What specifically were you referring to?
Elissa Slotkin: So I think if you review the record — starting back in September when the strikes started happening in the Caribbean and Pacific — the administration said we are now in conflict, in a war, with a list of drug trafficking organizations.
Okay — so we ask, “Is that list five? Twenty-five? Fifty?” They will not publicly acknowledge the list.
To me, a secret list of groups we are at war with — not great.
Then you ask: what’s the legal justification? That’s classified.
Then: what intelligence are you using? Also classified.
So we have a secret list, secret legal justification, secret intel.
At the same time, the president issued a new executive order on domestic terrorist organizations — asking DOJ to produce a list, and to use the full weight of the federal government against them.
So my question is: will there also now be a secret domestic list? And what tools will be used? As a former CIA officer, I know very clearly what is illegal. And this combination really set off alarm bells.
Mina Kim: You know those rules — but you are just as concerned that this administration may ignore them.
Elissa Slotkin: Yes. I cannot say with a straight face that they will not do domestically exactly what they have done internationally — because they have not been transparent, and we do not have strong oversight.
And I’m trying to get the intelligence community on the record stating: “We will not use intelligence agencies against American citizens on American soil.” We have not gotten that yet.
Mina Kim: In addition, you were deemed by the president as “seditious.” He went on to say on social media that it was punishable by death — for appearing in a video with other Democratic lawmakers with military experience telling service members they do not have to follow unlawful orders. And this week, Defense Secretary Hegseth censured Senator Mark Kelly for participating in that video.
What does this response tell you?
Elissa Slotkin: This is a concerted effort by the president and his team to send a message: if you speak up, you will be punished. When the president of the United States calls for you to be hanged — that unleashes thousands of threats. Against you. Your family. Your staff. I required 24/7 security. And there is still a federal legal inquiry.
Mina Kim: Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, thank you so much for talking with us.
Elissa Slotkin: Thank you.
Mina Kim: You’re listening to Forum. I’m Mina Kim.