'Who Won The 2020 Election?': Elissa Slotkin Grills Markwayne Mullin At Confirmation Hearing

Ms. Larkin.

Thank you. Thanks for being here. Thanks for our conversation yesterday. I want to just actually add on to what Senator Langford were saying and just focus on the attack we had at a temple that's very close to my heart in Michigan,

a place I know well. Last week, we had an anti-Semitic attack meant to terrorize not just that synagogue but the entire Jewish community and I think the light is really blinking red and that is the feeling for the Jewish community and just as an objective statement the Jewish community is ten times more likely to be the victim of a hate crime

than all other religious groups combined. That's not a political statement. That's a factual statement from FBI data. And we talked about the need to work together. The Jewish community is spending about $1 billion a year privately securing their own institutions. No

religious group should have to spend that amount of money that could be going to lots of other things on their own security in the United States of America. So I would just ask your help in reforming the nonprofit security grant program so it's agile so you don't't have to win the grant and then still do 100 pieces of paper, maybe even looking at a rapid reaction fund, but certainly asking for some sort of task force.

I'm thinking about the community in Australia that went to the Australian government, the Jewish community, and said, we're seeing just a real uptick in threats. We're terrified. And then we have Bondi Beach and a very horrible thing. So can we just agree in public again in a bipartisan basis to

sit together to reform this program and figure out how we manage to the threat because we're not hitting it right now.

Senator, you have a wealth of knowledge from your service in the intel community on you will know this issue probably better than me. And so I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk to you, figure out what we need to do. I know this is very personal to you, and that's great. We may have some differences on some political views,

but this isn't one. You and I will be laser focused and get this resolved if it's possible. But yes, I would absolutely welcome an

opportunity to work with you on that. Great, I appreciate that. I think, you know, in general, your position or your future position as Secretary of Homeland Security sits at like the fulcrum of these big issues we're having as a country. Just big cultural issues. The use of law enforcement in our streets and where our rights begin and end and then our elections, our democracy. And given the importance of that, I think it's important that we state really

clearly where you are on those two issues. You know, I think first and foremost on the use of ICE. You know, my state voted for Donald Trump in 2024. A lot of people supported the president's immigration agenda but then they watched with their own eyes, not filtered through a news source,

they watched with their own eyes American citizens killed in their streets for protesting. They saw children caught in the crossfire and being tear gassed. They saw people randomly being pulled out of their cars and walking down the streets because they happened to look like they could be an immigrant and checked for their papers, which for

many of us has a real history. They have seen people go in law enforcement go into people's homes without a judicial warrant for a country that was invented because we were being oppressed by a foreign force that demanded entry into our homes. So you say you don't want ice in the news. You say you want to rebuild trust.

Your predecessor was fired because she couldn't manage that. And people had to go in and bring the temperature down. Can you without other words just state clearly what you'd be willing to do to fundamentally reform ICE and put into law to do so since that trust is gone?

Ma'am as you know I can't make the law. You make that for me. But you're going to be the secretary. Yes, I agree but I can't make the law. I can work within the parameters. No, but tell us what you'd be willing to put into law. So let's, right now the law that I work into is your decision. We'll work through that but I do believe there is a better approach and I think working with municipalities, I would love to see ice become a transport more than the front line. If we get back, if

we get back into just simply working with law enforcement, we're going to them and we're picking up these criminals from their jail one. We're gonna reimburse them for having the person there and have partnership is violently important. I don't think there needs to be a wall to change that. I think I can work within what is there. But there's an approach that can happen. But we've got to have partners.

Yeah, I understand. I understand. But I would just, we're not going to agree to this here. But I would just say, the ability, the trust is gone. And not just with Democrats. That's why we're here. That's why your predecessor was fired.

And there needs to be fundamental reform of this law enforcement agency. And I think that the public writ large is crying out for that. Let me turn to elections.

Senator Kennedy.

No, no, no.

Let me turn to elections. The Department of Homeland Security has the mandate since the Obama era for securing our election infrastructure. That's an important job, and you'll be secretary. The president has continued to say

that he won the 2020 election, even though there's been 60 court cases saying the opposite. He has said he wants to federalize the elections. He has said name check to federalize the elections. He has said name-check cities including Detroit. He has said voting machines are inaccurate. He has said in the State of the Union, I was on the Senate floor, paraphrase that if he

doesn't if his side doesn't win in November then the elections were rigged which is exactly what he said eight months before the 2020 election. You have your own history. You did not certify the 2020 election. There are people at the Department of Homeland Security, three people in Divinity, specifically who are well-known election deniers now running election security functions. Who won the 2020 election?

Ma'am, we know that President Joe Biden was sworn into office. He was the president for the last four years. But I do believe my job as Department of Homeland Security Secretary will be to make sure that we assure that the elections are fair and people can trust them.

Does the federal government run the elections process or do states?

It's very clear in the Constitution that the the states control state elections and and then there is some federal oversight that's on it but the federal government can set some standards. So if you're talking about the Save American Act requiring you, which is within the Constitution by the way, requiring individuals to be citizens of the United States, I don't

think it's too much to ask somebody to prove they're a citizen of the United States. I don't think it's too much to ask somebody to prove they're a citizen of the United States to vote in a federal election. That's not what we're talking about. I'm talking about administering the elections. If you are Secretary of Homeland Security, do you feel you have the authority to put uniformed officers at polling locations in 2026?

Ma'am, we said this in your office. The only reason why my officers would be there if there was a specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation. And I said we would be able to share that. So even though we didn't need it during World War II,

we didn't need it during Vietnam or the war on terror, we never had to put uniformed military there. Now you feel that there's going to be a reason that there's going to be an armed threat to the United States

that you need to potentially be there? I can't sit there and guarantee hypothetically what threat would be not. I'm not putting military that's not within my uniform. Sorry. But if there is a threat, a specific threat, say it's in a Jewish community and there is a threat that's specific to that to that polling area, then we will work with local law enforcement. There'll be there'll be a reason for us to be there and it'll be known why we're there. I think the reason

you're here and not Kristi Noem is because Americans trust their local law enforcement now way more than they trust ICE. So I would just say, if we ever get to the point where you are being asked to put armed ICE officers at polling locations, we have lost the plot as a country. We have fundamentally lost it.

And until I hear someone tell me that this man, President Trump, will actually allow us to have a free and fair election? There is zero trust here and I cannot trust that he won't try and steal it. There is zero trust here and I cannot trust that he won't try and steal it. Again, I yield back.