Richard Blumenthal headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Born
February 13, 1946
Age 80
Phone
(202) 224-2823
Office
503 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Connecticut

Richard Blumenthal

Richard Blumenthal is an American politician and attorney serving as the senior United States senator from the state of Connecticut. A member of the Democratic Party, he has been a member of the Senate since 2011. Blumenthal previously served as U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, as a member of the Connecticut General Assembly, and as the 23rd Connecticut attorney general.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 851
Yes29%
No70%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Richard Blumenthal headshot
Richard Blumenthal
U.S. SenatorDemocratConnecticut
SoupScore
Richard's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 114 sponsored · 606 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

I will continue to demand answers & accountability from Binance for having helped prop up Iranian-linked terrorist organizations & illicit Russian oil sales. Silence on key facts speaks volumes about Binance’s suspected complicity.
Binance’s evasive response completely dodges my questions & does little to ease my concerns that sanctioned entities, terrorist organizations, & other criminal actors have been surreptitiously laundering nearly $2 billion using its cryptocurrency exchange since its 2023 consent order.
Whoever follows her must institute commonsense reforms that the American people have demanded & police forces around the country routinely follow. Changing only the top official is inadequate without changing the practices & power structure in the department.
Kristi Noem’s firing is well-earned. The atrocities she oversaw, the falsehoods she peddled, & the corruption she committed—all richly deserve her discharge. President Trump should have made it explicit, rather than disguising it with another position of public trust.
Another nation building forever war—that’s what I feared after our classified briefing & more so with every day of mounting costs in lives & resources. Now Trump’s war of whim & vanity threatens to escalate regionally & spiral out of control.
Trump shouts the quiet part out loud—he must be involved in choosing new leadership in Iran. His regime change agenda is a path toward American troops on the ground. Bombing alone can’t achieve it. Our nation’s sons & daughters will be in harm's way.
Courage still counts. Kudos to law firms showing spine & standing up to Trump’s illegal bullying. As for firms that cravenly caved, you’ll be accountable—my PSI investigation into these malign deals will continue.
This attack fits a pattern of unilateral action without accountability to the American people. I believe that Congress should come back into session, demand answers on behalf of Americans, & act on the Iran War Powers Resolution. 3/
A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable & Iran’s malign activities throughout the region pose a severe danger, but President Trump has failed to explain to the American people his objectives, end game, or exit strategy—risking another forever war. 2/
A veteran’s disability rating must be strictly based on that veteran’s underlying condition, & I will be introducing legislation to ensure any Administration can never try to cut veterans’ benefits in this way again.
The Secretary has started the process to permanently rescind a cruel & dangerous policy that never should have been considered—slashing disability benefits for thousands of veterans. His overdue action is a credit to the tens of thousands of veterans who made their voices heard.
Popok is joined by Senator Richard Blumenthal, the Senior Senator from Connecticut, about staggering revelations at yesterday's spotlight hearing in which a former ICE lawyer and trainer shockingly revealed that he was instructed to train ICE to intentionally violate the law.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
851 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-04-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-32)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-04-07End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-39)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (5-94)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 26 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26NONOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-83)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 33 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33NONOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-82)
2025-04-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-04-03H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-42)
2025-04-02H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-02S.J. Res. 37 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Passed (51-48)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-03-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-42)
2025-03-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-03-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-03-27S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-03-26S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)

Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.

← PrevPage 14 / 18Next →