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 — 783
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 · 354 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

If chronic disease is an existential threat to our nation, why is RFK Jr. slashing research programs that could help of millions of Americans treat and prevent these very diseases? You can't solve a crisis by destroying the tools needed to fight it. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/h...
Ask the 70 million Americans who rely on Social Security what they think of it, and they’ll tell you it’s vital lifeline. Ask Elon Musk what he thinks of it, and he’ll tell you it’s a Ponzi Scheme—a fraud.
Congress has a constitutional role to play in strengthening our economy and protecting our national security from President Trump’s policies. My Democratic colleagues and I continue to work to fulfill that role, and I hope that soon, enough senators on both sides of the aisle will do so.
Time and again tonight, Senate Republicans were given the opportunity to take a stand against these disastrous tariffs and in favor of protecting Social Security. Time and again they refused.
Trump’s tariff policies have unleashed a national economic crisis, and tonight we saw Senate Republicans’ solution: slashing Social Security and Medicaid to pay for more tax cuts for billionaires.
Democrats are clear: we can focus on the Trump administration’s security failures and still hold them accountable for trying to cut Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
The Supreme Court has unanimously held that government officials can't punish private organizations they dislike for speech they disagree with. Trump's attacks on law firms are unconstitutional, and our nations' biggest law firms shouldn't bend to a bully. www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnb...
I'm glad that the Pentagon's independent inspector general is investigating this, but it's clear this administration's use of Signal to discuss sensitive information goes far beyond @DeptofDefense. That's why I've called on multiple IG's to start similar investigations as well.
JUST IN: The acting Inspector General of the Defense Department will review Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal in a group chat with other key national security officials to discuss military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen last month, the IG’s office announced.
Social Security isn't a giveaway—you've earned it, just like your parents and grandparents. I'll keep defending Social Security so you get the benefits you’re owed.
Choosing between protecting Social Security for older Americans or cutting it like Elon Musk and Mike Johnson want to do to pay for tax breaks for billionaires isn’t an economic choice. It’s a moral choice.
“Please cancel the contracts [even though] our improper payments will go up, and fraudsters may compromise identities…” This is damning. DOGE isn’t finding or eliminating waste and fraud at the Social Security Administration. They’re creating it. www.huffpost.com/entry/janet-...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
783 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
2025-12-04S. Res. 520 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-04H.J. Res. 131 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint 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)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-43)
2025-11-19S.J. Res. 76 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (46-51)
2025-11-19S.J. Res. 89 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47)
2025-11-19Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-11-18End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (65-32)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (60-40)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (60-40)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (76-24)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Failed (47-53)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Failed (47-53)
2025-11-10H.R. 5371 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40)
2025-11-09H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-07S. 3012 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-43, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-06S.J. Res. 90 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 90YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (49-51)
2025-11-05Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (57-43)
2025-11-05End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-41)
2025-11-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-11-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-11-04H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required)
2025-11-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-10-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-10-30S.J. Res. 88 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Passed (51-47)
2025-10-30S.J. Res. 80 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-45)
2025-10-29S.J. Res. 77 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Passed (50-46)
2025-10-29S.J. Res. 69 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Rejected (25-72)
2025-10-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-10-29S.J. Res. 80 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46)
2025-10-28S.J. Res. 81 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-10-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-10-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-47)
2025-10-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-10-28H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (58-40)
2025-10-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-10-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-10-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-45)
2025-10-23S. 3012 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)

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 / 16Next →