Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) warned on Wednesday that the US military must remain politically neutral and should never be used to interfere in elections or serve the interests of a single political party.

Slotkin raised concerns about the potential use of the military in domestic political affairs in a post on X. "The uniformed military shouldn't be deployed to interfere in our elections. Period," she said.

Constitutional Guardrails

Slotkin argued that the military's nonpartisan tradition is essential to protecting democratic institutions. She pointed to legal and constitutional guardrails intended to keep the military out of domestic political and law-enforcement activities.

"The nonpartisan tradition of military service and the constitutional guardrails that prevent our military from becoming a domestic police force for one political party are essential to maintaining our democracy," Slotkin said.

She described the nation's top defense and security officials as "the final failsafe for our democracy." Slotkin cited a constitutional scholar who questioned what would happen if a president attempted to establish himself as a dictator. The scholar noted that the critical question is whether the military and other force-deploying agencies of the Federal government are willing to comply with such orders.

Pledge Sought From Defense Leaders

Slotkin asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to confirm that federal troops would not be sent to polling places or used to seize election materials during the November midterms, CBS News reported.

She said Democrats were concerned the Trump administration could use the military to interfere with voting.

Political Context

Earlier this month, Republican National Committee Chair Joe Gruters predicted Republicans would retain the House and Senate despite Democrats holding a 6- to 8-point polling advantage.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris warned that voting rights faced growing challenges and urged Americans to register and vote.

Last month, President Donald Trump called for passage of the SAVE America Act and increased defense spending, including $350 billion under Reconciliation 3.0. The White House had also sought $87.6 billion in additional funding, including $21 billion for the Defense Department.

Senator Elissa Slotkin reported that President Donald Trump threatened to have her hanged over a 90-second video she organized in November 2025. The video, titled "Don't Give Up the Ship," featured Slotkin and five other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds urging service members to refuse illegal orders. Slotkin stated that Trump's social media attacks resulted in threats against her and her family, including bomb threats and swatting incidents.

The lawmakers involved in the video included Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan. They addressed active-duty service members, reminding them of their oath to the Constitution amid domestic deployments by the Trump administration. Trump responded on Truth Social by labeling the video "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!!" and later stated it was "punishable by DEATH!"

Lawmakers Defend Warning On Illegal Orders

Slotkin defended the video, stating it restated standard military training and constituted protected speech. Critics argued that Trump's posts referred to legal penalties for sedition or treason rather than direct orders to harm the lawmakers. Following the threats, Capitol Police placed Slotkin under round-the-clock protection.

In January, Slotkin disclosed that the Trump administration had opened an investigation into her through the office of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro. The Justice Department has not publicly detailed the inquiry. Slotkin emphasized that the administration's actions send a message to all Americans who might speak up.

Federal Inquiry Escalates Political Fight

Separately, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to censure and retroactively demote Senator Mark Kelly. Kelly has sued, alleging unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. The ongoing conflict highlights the tensions between the administration and lawmakers over military orders and free speech.