Instead of focusing on lowering costs for you and your family, Trump decided to plunge us into a disastrous war of choice in the Middle East. Now, inflation is the highest it’s been in years, and there’s no end in sight.
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 — 846
Yes33%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align94%
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 · 55 sponsored · 376 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
100+ days into Trump’s war with Iran, he wants you to believe it’s going well.
Here’s what it has actually delivered:
⛽ $4+ gas
🛒 Higher grocery bills
✈️ More expensive summer travel
🚛 Higher diesel and shipping costs
That’s why @reed.senate.gov and I introduced a bill to make sure AI is used safely, effectively, and legally, with human oversight, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons and surveillance here at home.
AI is already reshaping the future of warfare, and we need clear guardrails before these systems are making life-or-death decisions.
Last week, Republicans chose Trump’s mass deportation agenda over working families.
How does this bill help Americans afford gas? A family hit with higher health care premiums? A small business owner squeezed by Trump’s tariffs?
It doesn’t.
Yesterday marked 100 days into Trump’s war with of choice with Iran, and missiles were still flying across the region. Here at home, Americans still have no clear strategy, no real answers, and no end in sight.
A president who cannot defend his flat-out false conspiracy theories without attacking the press is a dangerous sign for our democracy.
Instead of helping working Americans, Republicans have decided to help a corrupt president in his efforts to become even more corrupt and unpopular.
Republicans have once again betrayed the working people they promised to help, worrying more about placating Trump than American families.
How is that going to help a mom who doesn’t know how she’s going to pay to fill up her car because of Trump’s war of choice with Iran? Or working parents whose health care premiums have shot up? Or entrepreneurs seeing costs skyrocket because of Trump’s tariffs?
Senate Republicans just pushed through another bill to spend taxpayer money on out-of-control and unaccountable immigration enforcement, while shielding ICE and CBP from commonsense reforms that would have brought them in line with law enforcement agencies around the nation.
Senate Republicans had a choice early this morning.
They could stop taxpayer dollars from going to people convicted of assaulting police on January 6.
Instead, they blocked my amendment.
Reposted bySenator Chris Coons
Senate Republicans BLOCKED Sen. @coons.senate.gov amendment to bar taxpayer funds from going to insurrectionists who assaulted law enforcement officers.
Shameful.
This is a dangerous moment for our republic.
Tonight, I’m forcing a vote to block Trump’s slush fund, championed by Todd Blanche, from sending taxpayer dollars to people convicted of attacking cops on January 6th.
Great news for the First State! From developing the next generation of lifesaving drugs to developing the next generation of doctors, the future of health care will be made in Delaware! www.delawarepublic.org/science-heal...
ICE agents shouldn't be kicking down doors without a warrant, wearing masks, or operating by rules that would never fly for local police.
But instead of accepting these basic reforms, Republicans are trying to push through another $72 billion tonight for Trump’s mass deportation agenda.
Our tax code should reflect our values. After 15 years of Republican tax cuts for the wealthy, it no longer does, and ordinary Americans are struggling. It's time for you to pay less and the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share again.
The message I heard from Delawareans this week was clear: they're working harder than ever and still falling behind. Here in the Senate, we have a responsibility to give them a hand up by making life more affordable and opportunities more plentiful.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History846 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
846 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 12 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 10 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-52) |
| 2025-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (54-44) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
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.