Slotkin Goes Silent on Past ‘Shoot at Their Legs’ Claim After DC National Guard Shooting — Questions Mount Over Elissa Slotkin Controversy
Sen. Elissa Slotkin declined to comment this week about prior warnings she made tying then-President Trump to proposals to use force against protesters, as a fatal Washington, D.C., National Guard shooting renews scrutiny of her claims and related investigations.
- Immediate silence: Senator Slotkin declined to answer reporters pressing her about past claims, as covered by Fox News.
- Source of the claim: Slotkin’s account references former Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s recollections in his memoir A Sacred Oath, which President Trump denies.
- Video fallout: A November video urging service members to refuse illegal orders drew fierce reaction and reporting on the aftermath from reaction reporting.
What happened in Washington, D.C.
On Wednesday, an active-duty National Guard member was killed and another critically injured in a shooting near federal buildings in Washington, D.C. Federal authorities identified the suspect as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national and former member of a counterterrorism unit in Afghanistan. The FBI says the attack appeared targeted and is being investigated as a potential act of terrorism — reporting summarized by Fox News.
Slotkin’s past warnings and the Esper account
Senator Slotkin previously warned that, during the Trump administration, then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper relayed a comment attributed to the president proposing the deployment of the 82nd Airborne into Washington to control protests and asking, “can’t you just ‘shoot at their legs?'” She cited Esper’s account during a January committee hearing as evidence of dangerous thinking about using military force against U.S. citizens. The same recollections are described in Esper’s memoir A Sacred Oath; the former president denies making the remark.
The November video and the fallout
In November, Slotkin and six other Democratic lawmakers released a video aimed at active-duty and reserve service members warning that threats to the Constitution “aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home.” They urged troops to refuse illegal orders, saying:
“You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
President Trump described the video as “seditious” and posted that such behavior was “punishable by DEATH,” a comment that prompted a rapid clarification from the White House that no execution of members of Congress was planned. The exchange intensified threats against lawmakers and deepened partisan divisions, as documented in reaction reporting.
FBI investigation, threats and safety concerns
Following the video, Slotkin said she learned an FBI counterterrorism inquiry had been opened into her and five other congressional Democrats. She described the inquiry as political intimidation and reported a sharp rise in death threats, including a bomb threat at her family farm. Slotkin also said her security detail was expanded to constant protection. Sources and firsthand statements are summarized by Michigan Public Radio reporting and in the lawmakers’ posted materials, including the original video.
Slotkin’s defense and the lawmakers’ stance
Slotkin and her colleagues maintain they produced the video after current service members privately expressed fear they might be asked to carry out unlawful orders. They cited their military and intelligence backgrounds and framed the message as protecting the Constitution and the oath service members take. The lawmakers issued a joint statement accusing the president of using the FBI to “intimidate and harass members of Congress” and vowed to continue their work, noting legal analysis described by reporting on the lawmakers’ joint statements and legal analysis.
Questions raised by Slotkin’s silence
Slotkin’s refusal to answer repeated questions this week drew criticism across the political spectrum. Conservative critics emphasize:
- Accountability: Voters demand clear explanations when national security and public safety are implicated.
- Evidence: The core allegation rests on Esper’s memoir and Slotkin’s recounting; opponents ask for documentary corroboration.
- Partisan weaponization: Some worry invoking extreme scenarios without transparent proof fuels hysteria and erodes trust in institutions.
Supporters counter that Slotkin’s silence may reflect ongoing investigations and legitimate safety concerns, pointing to her claims of increased threats documented by Michigan Public Radio reporting.
Implications for the United States
Economic impact: Political instability and concerns about the safety of service members can indirectly affect markets and government contractors. Heightened tensions about domestic military roles may increase uncertainty for defense suppliers and local businesses.
Political consequences: The episode deepens polarization over military use on U.S. soil. Conservatives may press for clearer rules of engagement and support for troops, while others demand accountability for charged claims. The FBI probe into lawmakers risks becoming a campaign flashpoint.
Social and cultural effects: The death of a National Guard member and debates over refusing orders raise morale and civil-liberties concerns. Allegations that leaders discussed shooting protesters touch on deep national sensitivities about the limits of government force.
Practical outcomes: Expect pressure for clearer training and guidance for service members on unlawful orders, potential congressional hearings, oversight inquiries, and possible legislative responses. Voters will weigh how officeholders balance public safety and political rhetoric going forward.
Reporting and sources
This article draws on reporting and public statements from multiple outlets and records, including:
- Fox News coverage of the shooting and Slotkin’s responses
- Michigan Public Radio reporting on Slotkin’s account of threats and the FBI inquiry
- The November video and security statements (original video)
- Reporting on the lawmakers’ joint statements and legal analysis
What’s next
The D.C. shooting, Slotkin’s prior warnings, and her current silence will continue to attract attention as investigators pursue motive, lawmakers seek answers, and voters assess competing claims. Further reporting is necessary to verify Esper’s account, the scope of any federal inquiries, and policymakers’ responses.
