Senator Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA analyst who recently featured in a controversial Democratic video advising the military, is facing intense scrutiny after her high-profile claim on Stephen Colbert’s show that the “Deep State” is fictional. Critics argue her own professional resume—defined by her involvement in expanding surveillance and promoting politically charged investigations—directly contradicts her reassuring description of the intelligence community.
Slotkin attempted to redefine the CIA’s image, insisting her former colleagues are merely average Americans focused on service, and dismissing the “Deep State” narrative as “nasty” political rhetoric used by Donald Trump. However, her defense has failed to convince many, given her deep involvement in the intelligence community during an era of significant power expansion.
Her controversial history includes active involvement during the push of the Trump-Russia hoax, a political investigation critics maintain was fueled by the intelligence community’s internal biases. This history makes her current claim—that intelligence officials are just “corn-fed people in mom jeans and white sneakers”—ring hollow for those who believe the agencies have repeatedly demonstrated a capacity for partisan political action.
The most damaging element cited by critics is her recent participation in the coordinated “Sedition Video,” where she and other Democrats appear to encourage the military to ignore or challenge presidential orders. For those already concerned about unelected officials holding disproportionate power, this public act of defiance is seen as incontrovertible evidence that a network dedicated to preserving institutional control—the very definition of the Deep State—is operating openly.
The consensus among political commentators skeptical of the intelligence community is clear: Slotkin is attempting to downplay the institutional power structure she helped build. Her denial on the national stage, backed by a friendly late-night host, is viewed less as honest testimony and more as a final attempt to neutralize a dangerous political charge, even as her own actions provide continuous, compelling counter-evidence.
Leave a Reply