Christopher A. Coons headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Delaware
Born
September 9, 1963
Age 62
Phone
(202) 224-5042
Office
218 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Delaware

Christopher A. Coons

Christopher Andrew Coons is an American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Delaware, a seat he has held since 2010. A member of the Democratic Party, Coons served as the county executive of New Castle County from 2005 to 2010.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 772
Yes31%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align94%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Christopher A. Coons headshot
Christopher A. Coons
U.S. SenatorDemocratDelaware
SoupScore
Christopher A.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 51 sponsored · 347 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

I'm appalled to learn of the new famine declarations in El-Fasher and Kadugli town in Sudan that have put 375,000 people on the brink of starvation. An immediate surge of humanitarian aid is needed, and all groups must put down their weapons and commit to ending this war. www.npr.org/2025/11/03/g...
No, throwing a Great Gatsby-themed party at his gold-plated club while 42 million Americans lose their SNAP benefits isn’t President Trump’s "obligation," Speaker Johnson. It’s just careless.
Trump promised to reduce prices and improve the economy. He's done the opposite – and Americans know it.
New polling reveals 61% of voters think Trump has made the economy worse: "It seems we've finally come upon something that most Americans agree upon, and that is a central theme of Trump's winning message a year ago, 'I will bring costs down,' just simply has not happened."
From Georgia to Virginia to Pennsylvania, the voters spoke clearly: they’re fed up with high costs and Trump’s broken promises that he’d make America more affordable. So why is his administration in court today defending his tariffs that are raising costs on everyday goods for American families?
Last night, voters across the country made clear they’re concerned about Trump’s failure to address the cost of living. Trump’s response? Going over to the Supreme Court today to defend his tariffs that are increasing costs for American families by thousands of dollars.
@mcbride.house.gov and I agree: Trump defying a court order to take food off the table for 42 million Americans is unbelievably cruel—especially weeks before Thanksgiving.
Open enrollment has officially begun and millions of Americans are seeing their premiums double or even triple next year—all because Republicans are refusing to open the government and extend ACA tax credits. Head over to healthcare.gov and see the damage yourself.
Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. They're trying to unilaterally withhold money for SNAP and lay off thousands of workers. Of course Americans of all stripes are holding them responsible for this shutdown.
First, Trump cut hundreds of billions of dollars from SNAP. ⁣ ⁣ Then, he tried to stop paying food assistance entirely.⁣ ⁣ Now, he has to be dragged kicking and screaming by the courts to make just half of SNAP's payments.⁣ ⁣ Why doesn't he want hungry Americans to be able to eat?
I'm glad Governor @mattmeyerde.bsky.social and Delaware are stepping up to fill the void after Trump let SNAP lapse — but it’s only temporary. Republicans are trying to let families go hungry instead of working with us to reopen the government. whyy.org/articles/del...
Two federal judges in two different states both just ruled that Trump has to use emergency funds set aside for SNAP to actually fund SNAP. He can’t refuse to use them just to score political points. This is great news for everyone who doesn’t want hungry American families to go without food.
I’m horrified by the atrocities of the ongoing civil war in Sudan and the recent reports of ethnic cleansing and the murder of thousands of civilians by the RSF and allied militias around El-Fasher.
This week, I spoke with Jan, a Delaware business owner and stage 4 cancer survivor, who told me that without the ACA, she wouldn’t have survived. If rates double, her 30-year business closes. Stories like hers underscore the urgency of protecting health care and reopening the government.
Today's announcements after President Trump’s meeting with President Xi show the cost of his repeated concessions: Americans still pay higher prices, China continues to coerce allies, and Xi walks away emboldened. While China gets real wins, we just get back to where we were a few months ago.
So let me get this straight: Americans will face higher prices because Trump got his feelings hurt by a TV ad? An ad that consists entirely of remarks by President Reagan? You shouldn't have to pay more for everyday goods because the president's ego is too fragile.
The president announces an arbitrary price hike on Americans because his feelings are hurt by an ad accurately quoting Ronald Reagan’s criticism of tariffs
Canada was caught, red handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Tariffs. The Reagan Foundation said that they, “created an ad campaign using selective audio and video of President Ronald Reagan. The ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address,” and “did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is reviewing its legal options in this matter.” The sole purpose of this FRAUD was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their “rescue” on Tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States. Now the United States is able to defend itself against high and overbearing Canadian Tariffs (and those from the rest of the World as well!). Ronald Reagan LOVED Tariffs for purposes of National Security and the Economy, but Canada said he didn’t! Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD. Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
772 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
2026-01-29H.R. 7148 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-55, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-27S. 3627 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-45, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-15H.R. 6938 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (82-15)
2026-01-15H.R. 6938 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (85-14, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-14S.J. Res. 98 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 98NONOPoint of Order Well Taken (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2026-01-13S.J. Res. 84 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-52)
2026-01-12H.R. 6938 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (80-13, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-40)
2026-01-08S.J. Res. 98 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 98YESYESMotion to Discharge Agreed to (52-47)
2026-01-07S.J. Res. 86 (119th)Begin considerationNOT_VOTINGYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (43-50)
2026-01-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2026-01-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2026-01-05Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (50-35)
2025-12-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-12-18End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-35)
2025-12-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (58-36)
2025-12-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-12-18S. Res. 532 (119th)Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-43)
2025-12-18S.J. Res. 82 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 82YESYESJoint Resolution Defeated (50-50)
2025-12-17S. Res. 412 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-12-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (71-29)
2025-12-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (69-27)
2025-12-17Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (67-30)
2025-12-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-30)
2025-12-17S. 1071 (119th)Accept House changesNOT_VOTINGYESMotion Agreed to (77-20)
2025-12-15S. 1071 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (76-20, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-11S. 1071 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (75-22)
2025-12-11S. Res. 532 (119th)Resolution S.Res. 532NONOResolution Agreed to (52-47)
2025-12-11S. 3385 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-11S. 3386 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-10S. Res. 532 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-12-10S.J. Res. 82 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-49)
2025-12-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-12-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-46)
2025-12-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-12-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-12-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-12-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-12-04Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (57-32)
2025-12-04S. Res. 520 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-04H.J. Res. 131 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 131NONOJoint Resolution Passed (49-45)
2025-12-03End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (63-34)
2025-12-03S.J. Res. 91 (119th)Begin considerationNOT_VOTINGNOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47)
2025-12-03Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (57-41)
2025-12-03End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-40)
2025-12-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-39)
2025-12-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (61-36)
2025-12-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-12-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-41)
2025-11-20H.J. Res. 130 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 130NONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-43)

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 3 / 16Next →