In the final campaign push before the 2026 midterm election, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) promised that Democrats would wage a campaign of lawfare against President Trump and staffers of his administration if Democrats won control of either chamber of Congress. The theme is not new, but Slotkin’s comments stand out for their vindictiveness, threatening to target administration staffers to an extent that creates “deterrence” against young conservatives who might want to work for the administration.

Slotkin’s comments came at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics in an October 13, 2026 conversation with Astead Herndon, Vox editorial director and host of the podcast “America, Actually” (on which an October 10 guest claimed that Democrats should argue that abortion “is an affordability issue”).

If Democrats retake control of the House, the Senate or both, “we have to have accountability for the unbelievable corruption that we are living under right now,” Slotkin argued. “You have to pick signature cases, and you have to go after people … not just Trump.”

“Of course, there will be moments of ‘Let’s go after Trump himself,’” she added. “But, as someone who voted to impeach him twice, like, he’s still there. … But the people around Donald Trump, who are doing his bidding and enabling this have no such immunity … the way the president does.”

Several minutes later, Slotkin returned to the theme, “I am into effectiveness. And, if we have the House but not the Senate, I don’t have a ton of faith that my Republican colleagues are going to have any more strength [to impeach Trump],” she worried. “So … I want to look at these signature cases and not just focus on the president, but on the people who enabled him.”

This much the Democrats already did after President Trump’s first term, with their lawfare against Trump, the J6 investigations, and lawfare against anyone who took Trump’s side in litigating the 2020 election. But then Slotkin went even further.

“I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, 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, so let me avoid in participating in that,’” Slotkin fantasized. “I want that deterrence message sent.”

There is bringing accountability for true corruption, and then there is Slotkin’s vengeance fantasy. When corrupt politicians are held accountable for their crimes, the “deterrence message” sent to young college graduates is not “Don’t work for the administration” but “Don’t abuse positions of public trust for personal gain.” Otherwise, young professionals will simply say, “That person is not like me, because I do not intend to commit crimes.”

Sending a message that deters young people from working in the Trump administration altogether would require lawfare that targets both the guilty and innocent alike. It would require a degree of lawfare that considers mere employment by the Trump administration to be guilt by association.

Whether Slotkin realizes it or not, the “deterrence message” she proposed would involve a prima facie (“on its face”) injustice: punishing people who have committed no crime.

Even for anti-Trump Democrats who believe a Trump administration is bad by definition, it does not follow that every individual in that administration is bad. Innocent people can work in a “bad” government just as criminals can work in a “good” government (to cite one example from the Democratic perspective, the Biden administration fired “gender-fluid” nuclear security official Sam Brinton after he stole a woman’s luggage at an airport).

There are plentiful biblical examples of good government officials in bad regimes. Daniel served under multiple pagan emperors of Babylon, Media, and Persia (Daniel 1:19-21), even as those kings committed blasphemy and idolatry (Daniel 3:1), ignored his advice (Daniel 4:27-30), and were duped by self-serving counselors (Daniel 6:6-9). Mordecai became prime minister for an emperor who lived in debauched luxury (Esther 8:2). Nehemiah served as “cupbearer,” a high-ranking security position, for an absolute dictator (Nehemiah 1:11).

All these men prospered in the service of these eastern monarchs because of their integrity. They were competent, and they were trustworthy. “Do you see a man skillful in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure men” (Proverbs 22:29).

Perhaps the most dramatic example of a good man serving a bad government is Obadiah. He was “over the household” of Ahab (1 Kings 18:3), which would be something like the president’s chief of staff. This is the Ahab who married Jezebel, implemented Baal worship in Israel, and tried to kill Elijah. But “Obadiah feared the Lord greatly, and when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave and fed them with bread and water” (1 Kings 18:3-4).

Even such a ruler as Ahab could value the services of a competent man of sincere faith, especially when there were bigger problems, like famine, to contend with (1 Kings 18:5-6). And even such a man as Obadiah could serve such a king as Ahab, even though he disagreed with (and acted contrary to) him where conscience required it.

The case of Joseph merits special attention. After his wise policy of storing extra grain during seven years of plenty saved Egypt from starvation, his policy took a curious turn. Moses records that Joseph sold the stockpiled grain back to the people of Egypt, taking first their money (Genesis 47:14), then their livestock (Genesis 47:17), and finally their land and labor (Genesis 47:20). This was the case for all but the priests, who kept their land and freedom (Genesis 47:22).

This account could make Joseph sound like an oppressive enslaver. But readers must remember that Joseph was not the king. He was an agent of Pharaoh, and in that subservient role he was faithful to defend Pharoah’s interest. Indeed, the arrangement he ultimately established in law simply imposed a 20% tax on Egyptian produce (Genesis 47:26), which was quite a lenient outcome. The exemption for the false religious cults of Egypt was not Joseph’s doing but was preexistent policy which he was not in a position to change.

From Joseph’s example, we see that even good men in bad governments may be required to implement policies that would not be their first choice. But the authority to make the decisions lies with others. Their role is simply to implement them faithfully.

Under the tactics Slotkin proposes, subordinate public officials who behave with the integrity of Joseph, Daniel, and Nehemiah would be subjected to relentless pressure and intimidation, simply for doing their jobs well. Only such a policy would send a “deterrence message” that would turn ambitious young people at the beginning of their careers away from employment in the Trump administration.

Within days, the Center to Advance Security in America had filed a Senate ethics complaint against Slotkin, arguing that her remarks constituted threats against public service.