Speaker 1: I'm now joined by Michigan's new Democratic Senator Alyssa Slotkin, a former Pentagon official and CIA analyst who now sits on the Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees. Welcome, Senator. It's good to see you this morning. So let's get right to it. You heard Tom Homan there saying that while criminals are the priority, national security threats, public safety threats, that he is warning everyone in this country illegally, and the estimates are 11 million to leave. What effect do those warnings have?

Speaker 2: Well, look, I mean, clearly they're trying to deter people from coming and they're trying to send notice to people here, you know, that this could be happening to them. I think, you know, they campaigned on this. And one of the things that to me has been a real hallmark when I listened to some of these immigration announcements lately is that it's like they're still in the campaign, right? Now you have to govern. Now you're in the seat. You have to actually make this work with the money you have available. So I think that's more of a signal to try and keep people from coming to the border, trying to get in. And it's part of this transition that they're not quite into yet between campaigning and governing.

Speaker 1: What about the schools and churches? You heard him there say you can go into a middle school, you can go into an elementary school. I mean, he said that's, you know, case by case basis. But your reaction to that?

Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I just don't understand, you know, if the focus and the priority is on criminals, I'm not sure going after an 11 year old is where you start. And this is the, again, the inconsistency between what they're saying and then what we saw happen in this past week, right? Going after places that were not sanctuary cities kind of in this sort of what felt sort of arbitrary way. So I think to me, you know, the idea of going into children and terrorizing children, I just don't believe in supporting that kind of action. And I don't believe it that most Americans think that 11 and 12 year olds are the ones who are the hardened criminals

Speaker 1: that need to go back to their countries. He did make a point of saying that would be on a case by case basis. But let's talk. Let's talk about the military. Fifteen hundred on the way are already there. There's probably more to come. Those troops will be armed this time. First of all, your reaction to those military flights and the influx of troops going to the border and

Speaker 2: the idea that they are armed? Yeah, I mean, look, I think we've had multiple administrations who have sent uniformed troops, active duty troops to the southern border in support roles, right? According to our Constitution, you can go in supporting roles, logistics, driving, setting up facilities, setting up border locations, whatever. It's very different when you cross the line into law enforcement. Our military are not trained as law enforcement officers. They'll be the first one to tell you that. That's not why they got into service. And it's also in violation of our Constitution. So I think it's very important that we keep that line. We knew that the administration was going to use military aircraft to start sending people home. They were going to put that on TV. We knew that. But you're coming right up to that line of logistics and support and law enforcement. If there's people, as they say, that are criminals on those planes, who is the one enforcing order on those planes? You just you come really close to it. So it was something that I raised with Mr. Hegseth in his confirmation hearing. I just want to know, you know, not that you're pledging an oath to Donald Trump, but you're not going to use the uniform military in ways that violates the Constitution and makes American citizens scared of their own military. That was you know, we were scared of the British when they occupied us. We don't want to repeat that. So I'm watching that very, very closely. And you brought up Pete

Speaker 1: Hegseth, who was narrowly confirmed with J.D. Vance breaking the tie there. What are your concerns? You voted against him and had some pretty tough questions for him about his

Speaker 2: job going forward. What are your concerns? I mean, as I stated, I mean, I've been very consistent with all the people that I've been talking to in these hearings, right? Whether it's the Secretary of the Agriculture candidate or Homeland Security or Secretary of Defense, confirm for me that you understand you're going to be raising your right hand and pledging an oath to the Constitution, not Donald Trump, and that if Donald Trump asked you to do something that contravenes the Constitution, you would push back. It's not theoretical, right? The former Secretary of Defense under Trump, Mark Esper, said that Trump asked him to send in the 82nd Airborne to put down peaceful protests in Washington, D.C. He convinced him against it. I want to know that this secretary isn't a watered-down version of the previous secretaries and is going to actually push back. He couldn't unambiguously say that he will push back if the president asked him to do something that wasn't constitutional. And that, to me, is why I couldn't confirm him. There's a lot of other things in his background I don't like. But I look at what is the strategic and irreversible threats to our democracy, and that's using the uniformed military

Speaker 1: in ways that violate the Constitution. You have the confirmation hearing this week of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. You spent a good part of your career in intelligence. What do you want to ask her?

Speaker 2: Well, I'm not technically in those hearings, but we will be voting on her. Look, I mean, people have been asking me, other senators have been asking me, you want someone of character and of competence, right? And I served with Tulsi Gabbard. We were on the Armed Services Committee together. She didn't spend a lot of time showing up to hearings, so I didn't get to, like, see her in action all that much. But from what I understand from people who have been meeting directly with her, and she hasn't asked to meet with me, is that she doesn't show the competence, the understanding, the depth. She wasn't prepared for her meetings, not to mention the deeply questionable decision she's made of cozying up to Vladimir Putin, flying and cozying up with Assad in Syria. You know, having someone in charge of our intelligence organization that shows a preference for our adversaries, to me, is just right off the bat a deep question. And so, again, I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who now have control of the Senate, control of the House, that they think about, again, their commitment to the country, not to any one party. I do not believe she's qualified for this

Speaker 1: role. Okay, thanks so much for joining us this morning, Senator. Much appreciated.