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?
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Delaware
Christopher A. Coons
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 776
Yes31%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align93%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Christopher A. Coons
U.S. SenatorDemocratDelaware
SoupScore
Christopher A.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 51 sponsored · 347 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
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.
The U.S. must act now to hold the RSF accountable, protect innocent civilians, and bring this conflict to an end. Read my statement with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee here: www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-r...
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.
Read my full statement with Senator Bennet here: www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-r...
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.
Delawareans know what the real crisis is: it’s the skyrocketing cost of health care. Republicans need to help us clean up the mess they created.
Let's be clear: Trump could continue to fund food assistance programs like SNAP on his own. He's just choosing not to.
He doesn't just want to keep the government to stay shutdown – he wants families to go hungry.
Don't be fooled: Trump is using the shutdown as a distraction to pursue his radical agenda of cuts to crucial services. www.pbs.org/newshour/pol...
Control of artificial intelligence may define the rest of the 21st Century. That’s why Trump’s willingness to give China access to the most advanced computer chips on the market should alarm every American.
Our national parks are paying the price for Republicans' government shutdown, and every day they delay, they are making neglect become the nation’s environmental policy.
Reposted bySenator Chris Coons
Coons: "I'm alarmed by reports Trump is considering allowing Nvidia to sell China their most advanced chip. The defining fight of the 21st century will be who controls AI... it would be a tragic mistake for Trump, in order to get some soybeans out of China, to sell them these critical AI chips"
Delawarean families like Daniel’s can’t afford to see their health insurance premiums double. I’m fighting for families like Daniel’s because they deserve better than the games Republicans are playing with their health care.
I call on both the RSF and SAF to return to the negotiation table, agree to a ceasefire, and lift the blockade on El Fasher. There must be accountability and peace for the people of Sudan. www.reuters.com/world/africa...
After 18 months of a full siege and humanitarian blockade on the city, more than 250,000 innocent people remain trapped in El Fasher, and the RSF’s control of it will lead to even more devastation for Sudanese civilians.
The hard work of any ceasefire isn't getting it signed, it's getting both sides to uphold it. The Trump administration needs to roll up its sleeves and hold both Hamas and Israel accountable to fully implement their ceasefire and protect civilians' lives.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History776 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
776 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Resolution S.Res. 690 | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 140 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
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.
Page 1 / 16Next →