Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) recently outlined a strategy for political accountability, suggesting that criminal cases could be used to deter young people from seeking employment within the President Donald Trump administration. Speaking at the University of Chicago last week, Senator Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, indicated her party should focus legal scrutiny on officials working under President Trump, rather than solely on the President himself.
"I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? That sounds 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.’" Senator Elissa Slotkin, (D-MI)
The Michigan Democrat explained that her target audience for this deterrence message is young Americans completing their education and contemplating career paths. "I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? That sounds 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,’" Slotkin stated during her address. She added, "I want that deterrence message sent."
Senator Slotkin clarified that her proposal is not intended to consume the Democratic party's entire political agenda, emphasizing the need for selective engagement. "We do have to have accountability for the unbelievable corruption that we are living under right now," she remarked. "But you can’t just make that your whole personality, right? So you have to pick signature cases, and you have to go after people and projects that are just super egregious."
She drew a distinction regarding legal immunity, noting that while the President possesses certain protections, his aides and appointees do not. "The people around Donald Trump who are doing his bidding and enabling this have no such immunity. They have no immunity the way the president does," Slotkin asserted. "And to me, he couldn’t do any of this stuff without all of those people saluting and supporting it. So you go after the people who do his bidding."
This recent appearance marked a reiteration of an idea Slotkin previously presented. In September, she delivered a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, conveying a similar message. During that event, Slotkin encouraged Democrats to pursue Trump administration officials should the party regain control of Congress. She likened such efforts to "clean-up campaigns" observed in some authoritarian European states, specifically referencing a plan in Poland. "In Poland, they called this plan the Iron Broom, cleaning the place up," Slotkin said. "The goal here is to have a list of signature cases that go after some of the most obvious and harmful abuses of taxpayer dollars." She also put names to the concept, citing specific former officials as examples of the kind of individuals who could be targeted.
Collectively, Slotkin's remarks describe a three-pronged approach: pursuing individuals who implemented the President's directives, limiting the scope to a concise list of high-profile cases, and leveraging these cases to discourage future participation in the administration.
In a related development during the same week as Slotkin's University of Chicago address, President Donald Trump commented on the possibility of pardoning officials who served under him after his time in office. During an interview with Newsmax, President Trump indicated he could extend pardons to his staff, and included himself in that possibility. He articulated his desire to shield his personnel from potential legal entanglements. "I don’t want to see people that work for me go through years of nonsense, hire lawyers and everything else, all for nothing," President Trump stated.
Neither Senator Slotkin's office nor the White House has provided further comments beyond the remarks made at the aforementioned public events. The differing perspectives highlight an ongoing debate regarding political accountability, the legal boundaries for government officials, and the potential implications for public service.
