For months now, the Trump administration has conducted military operations in Venezuela with no warning, no legal authority, and no explanation provided to Congress.
Now, we know why.
![OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS IN VENEZUELA
For months now, the Trump administration has conducted military operations in Venezuela with no warning, no legal authority, and no explanation provided to Congress.
Now, we know why.
The President has unilaterally carried out military activity in the Caribbean and circumvented Congressional approval, as required by the Constitution, because he knew that Congress would not support a senseless and short-sighted regime change ‘mission.’ They went so far as to lie to Congress during our recent briefings, saying specifically that their priority was not forceful regime change.
The U.S. military is not the president’s personal army.
Continued [rightward facing arrow]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did%3Aplc%3A5pgzf6g5p56phoxm4rk7tzjl/bafkreibtcmevw4ezws2jazepb45py5hfz5xm4qaeu6efcpxdfodyequa6q@jpeg)
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Delaware
Lisa Blunt Rochester
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 843
Yes29%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Lisa Blunt Rochester
U.S. SenatorDemocratDelaware
SoupScore
Lisa's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 33 sponsored · 196 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Too many families are being priced out of the communities they call home.
We need a New Way Home, so everyone has access to a safe, affordable roof over their heads regardless of their ZIP code.
My official statement on today's shooting.
I am actively monitoring the shooting that took place at the DMV in New Castle.
The governor has confirmed that there is no active threat to the public at this time.
I'm appreciative of the courageous effort from law enforcement and praying for those involved.
Reposted bySenator Lisa Blunt Rochester
Access doesn’t matter if people can’t afford it. With ACP gone and costs rising, millions are being priced out of broadband. Affordability isn’t a side issue—it’s the foundation of closing the digital divide.
@bluntrochester.senate.gov
Let Me Be Blunt: Some folks in Washington refuse to take our housing crisis seriously.
But I know housing is a priority for Delawareans, and I’ll keep fighting to make sure everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home.
🚨UPDATE: The discharge petition to force a vote on a 3-year extension of key ACA tax credits has earned enough signatures in the House.
We’re still in session here in the Senate— it’s time for Speaker Johnson to put this to a vote. The American people can’t afford to wait.
Costs: up
Unemployment: up
Consumer confidence: down
This administration: a disaster
This weekend, communities at home & around the world have been tragically impacted by senseless gun violence.
As we mark the anniversary of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, let us honor the memory of those 26 lives lost with action.
Action to end gun violence & make all our communities safer.
My heart is with the students and faculty of Brown University, and the entire Providence community. I’m praying for the loved ones of those lost and for the recovery of those injured.
Our schools should be a place for students to learn and grow, not live in fear of gun violence.
President Trump and Congressional Republicans have created a health care crisis.
And now, they've refused to support the cleanest, easiest, simplest solution - extending the ACA tax credits while we negotiate.
Let the record show who voted to lower premiums for American families.
It's so important for our kids to know what opportunities are out there so they can live their full potential.
This week in the HELP committee, I highlighted Delaware's successes in continuing technical education and discussed how we can build on that excellence nationwide.
It's no secret that, across the country, families are being priced out of their homes and communities.
So why did House Republicans come together this week to block bipartisan legislation that would cut housing costs?
It's time for them to start taking this crisis seriously.
I'm grateful for @kim.senate.gov's courage sharing this important story.
Like his and so many families across the country, my sisters and I faced a difficult journey caring for my dad when he was diagnosed with cancer.
Andy, I'll be here to support you every step of the way.
Reposted bySenator Lisa Blunt Rochester
Yet House Republicans just killed the first comprehensive (and bipartisan!!) housing package of the last few DECADES
The clock is ticking— we have 11 days left before folks start to feel the real impacts of Republicans’ health care crisis.
@wyden.senate.gov and I introduced a bill to keep that from happening in the short term and make long-term fixes to bring down costs.
There’s no time to waste.
Let’s cut through the noise.
The Trump admin. just arbitrarily decided to wreak havoc on the largest federal homelessness program, making changes that may cause more than 600 Delawareans to lose their housing.
They're getting ready to literally leave people out in the cold.
RFK Jr’s plan has been clear from the beginning:
Step 1: Oust the doctors and experts making evidence-based vaccine recommendations.
Step 2: Install vaccine skeptics and conspiracy theorists.
Now, we’re witnessing step 3.
The clock is ticking. Time is running out to extend key tax credits before massive premium increases take effect on January 1st.
We have an immediate crisis.
It's time to take immediate action.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History843 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
843 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-03 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-10-01 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | S. 2806 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-43) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-19 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-16 | S. Con. Res. 22 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62) |
| 2025-09-16 | S.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2025-09-15 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-10 | S. 2296 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-09-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (50-43) |
| 2025-09-04 | S. 2296 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-02 | S. 2296 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-23) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | — | — | Nomination Confirmed (72-22) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-35) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-42) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (78-17) |
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.