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 — 843
Yes33%
No62%
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 · 55 sponsored · 375 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

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.
WOW - Trump crashes out & cuts his interview w/ Welker short as she presses him on his lack of evidence for claiming elections are rigged "You're either crooked or you're stupid. I've had enough. Thank you darling," he tells her" "I traveled all the way to Wisconsin for this interview," she pleads
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.
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.
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.
We’ll be voting all day—and probably all night—on Republicans’ party line bill to fund Trump’s mass deportation effort. Republicans would rather give ICE a blank check than support commonsense, popular reforms that law enforcement officers around the country abide by every day.
Trump is spending: $100 million on a "victory arch" $1 billion on his ballroom $1.8 billion on his slush fund $13.1 million to repaint the Reflecting Pool But nothing to lower costs for you and your family
SCOTUS let Alabama use a map that lower courts found intentionally discriminated against Black voters. The right to vote is how Americans shape their future. Republicans know their ideas can’t compete on their merits, so they draw discriminatory maps to force that unpopular agenda through anyway.
Trump has said twice today that his $1.8 billion slush fund to pay off cop-beaters, campaign donors, and insurrectionists is still on the table, and I believe him. That’s why I’m introducing an amendment to the Republican spending bill to permanently ban it.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
843 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
2026-02-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2026-02-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2026-02-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2026-02-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2026-02-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-46)
2026-02-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-47)
2026-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2026-02-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2026-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (58-39)
2026-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-39)
2026-02-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2026-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-44)
2026-02-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-40)
2026-02-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Final passageYESNOBill Passed (71-29, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-30Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 4287)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (58-42)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (58-42)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (67-33)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (32-67)
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)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint 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)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (52-47)
2025-12-11S. 3385 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)

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 4 / 17Next →