It also funds critical health, transportation, housing, & defense programs, denying Republicans the chance to make this issue about a government shutdown—about failing to pay military families or making air passengers safe. 2/
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Connecticut
Richard Blumenthal
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes29%
No70%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Richard Blumenthal
U.S. SenatorDemocratConnecticut
SoupScore
Richard's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 124 sponsored · 660 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
This deal gives us an opportunity to impose real restraints on the Department of Homeland Security—lasting, enduring legislative reform to rein in an agency that is absolutely out of control. 1/
Even if agents are “drawn down” & arrests “targeted," major reforms are urgent—like requiring judicial warrants, body cameras, identification of agents, civil liability for wrongdoing, protection in sensitive locations, banning masks & mass sweeps. Cosmetics & optics won’t work.
Not enough. Homan’s baby steps to calm Minneapolis are no substitute for legislative action to restrain & reform an out of control agency inflicting violence & violations of rights. And astonishingly, no mention of immediate investigation of deaths with state & local law enforcement.
In the name of decency & democracy, Republicans should join in demanding ICE reform & restraint. Their silence or implicit support for ICE’s vicious wrongs makes them complicit in criminality. Americans & history will judge them harshly & justly—soon.
Trump Administration leaders have supported & spread a culture & permission structure for police state tactics—an out of control agency. 4
Make no mistake that this purposeful violence & lawlessness comes from top leaders of DHS & ICE. The secret ICE Director memo I revealed last week encourages blatant Constitutional violations. Official mass quotas for deportation incite misconduct. 3/
Law & basic decency require simple straightforward reforms—like requirements for body cameras, clear identification, judicial warrants, stopping brutality, mass sweeps, arrests in churches & similar places, breaking into homes. 2/
Proud to join a strong consensus of Democratic colleagues saying NO to the DHS spending bill without strict restraints & reforms on ICE. 1/
A government shutdown can be readily avoided by splitting the DHS appropriations from other funding measures, as was done in the House. Democrats have a consensus. Republicans should listen to America. 4
The secret ICE policy purposefully trashing constitutional rights—in the memo brought to me by whistleblowers—shows the official playbook. ICE’s killing citizens, kicking down doors, encouraging confrontation can be stopped—if Republicans join us in standing up. 3/
We must mandate an immediate, independent investigation of ICE lawbreaking—transparently done, jointly by federal & state oversight agencies. 2/
I’m a NO on DHS funding without strict restraints & comprehensive reforms to stop lawless, lethal violence led from the top. Americans are rightly terrified & outraged by the illegal brutality—police state tactics—we’re watching in real time. It must be stopped. 1/
State & local police & officials can be sued civilly, but not federal agents. Legal immunity encourages impunity. Our bill give victims a civil remedy—a needed day in court.
Now indisputably—after the latest ICE killing—the nation needs accountability through legal redress against federal agents who violate rights. I’ve joined with Sen. Padilla on a bill to provide a civil remedy to victims of lawbreaking by ICE & other federal officers.
Coverup in real time—if DHS investigates its own potential illegality. Congress must demand an independent investigation—immediately. A bipartisan call for justice—now.
It’s contemptible & unconscionable. 3/
The secret policy disclosed to me by whistleblowers—revealed to the public this week—shows an Administration contemptuous of the Constitution. Kicking down doors, trampling through homes, assaulting, detaining, even shooting innocent people, violating sacred American rights. 2/
Lethal vicious violence in Minnesota—heartbreaking & outrageous—directly reflects malign lawless leadership. Trump, Noem, all responsible for fostering a culture of illegal brutality, must be held accountable. 1/ www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/...
Wonderful to celebrate $250+ million in improvements—including 3 new gates, an enhanced baggage facility, & an expanded security checkpoint. Travelers will have a safer, more convenient experience & CT will see added economic growth.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-08 | S. 5271 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-49) |
| 2026-08-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-49) |
| 2026-08-08 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (90-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-08 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (61-32) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (91-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-07 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (86-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Amendment Rejected (32-64) |
| 2026-08-05 | S.J. Res. 187 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-08-05 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-08-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2026-08-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2026-08-03 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (89-4, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-30 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-07-30 | S.J. Res. 181 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 181 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-07-30 | S.J. Res. 199 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-07-29 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-07-29 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-12) |
| 2026-07-28 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (86-12, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2026-07-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2026-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2026-07-23 | S.J. Res. 180 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 180 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-49) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-44) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (62-36) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2026-07-21 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-48) |
| 2026-07-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (43-40) |
| 2026-07-16 | S.J. Res. 198 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-50) |
| 2026-07-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-07-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-07-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-07-14 | S. 4784 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-07-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 196 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-52) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-23 | H. Con. Res. 86 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-06-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2026-06-22 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (85-5) |
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.
Page 1 / 18Next →