Trump wants to FIRE 80,000 VA employees so he can give millionaires and billionaires about $70,000 off their taxes.
To be clear, he is firing the nurses and caseworkers who care for our veterans and gifting their salaries to the wealthiest people in the country.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Arizona
Ruben Gallego
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 903
Yes34%
No53%
Present0%
Not Voting13%
Party align92%
Cross-party8%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Ruben Gallego
U.S. SenatorDemocratArizona
SoupScore
Ruben's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 61 sponsored · 279 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Happy #InternationalWomensDay! I was raised by four fiercely independent women. Their strength, like that of so many moms, abuelas, teachers, and small business owners inspires us to fight for a more just future for women everywhere.
This isn’t “government efficiency”—it’s government neglect.
The Phoenix BIA office serves over 40 tribes, handling everything from economic development to child social services. I’m demanding answers from the GSA and fighting to keep these offices open.
apnews.com/article/trum...
Be prepared. Here’s what you can do if Elon Musk causes issues with your social security check.
Arizonans, email our team at casework@gallego.senate.gov if you need help.
Is Trump making tariff decisions with a magic 8 ball?
Arizona Business needs certainty.
This kind of chaos is going to drive Mexican businesses to look towards other countries.
Are we seriously going to be taking the money seniors use for housing/food/prescriptions—to SURVIVE—just to give guys like this a massive tax break?
Arizona families depend on Medicaid. For Anthony, it means life-saving treatment and round-the-clock care.
But Republicans would rather hand another tax cut to the ultra wealthy than protect everyday Americans.
The CHIPS Act has created thousands of good paying jobs. Donald Trump wants to get rid of it because he's mad it wasn't his idea.
Estamos trabajando para que las familias y los trabajadores de este país puedan alcanzar el sueño americano--para poder comprar una casa y empezar un negocio.
Trump is lying about Social Security because he’s trying to cut 7,000 of the workers who take care of our seniors.
When Trump said he would bring down prices on day 1, I thought he meant eggs not the stock market.
While Trump plays tough guy, Arizona is paying the price. His reckless trade war is a direct attack on our businesses, farmers, and families.
Thank you for sharing your story Kyle
This is a huge win for Arizona workers and builds on the CHIPS and Science Act I helped pass.
TSMC is investing an additional $100B in our state. That’s what happens when we invest in American manufacturing.
For families like Bridget’s Medicaid is a life saver. But Republicans would rather put lives on the line than deny Elon and his friends another tax cut.
Call your Republican representatives and tell them, NO cuts to Medicaid.
I’ll always welcome support to secure Arizona’s border and stop the flow of fentanyl, but let’s be clear—this is just an expensive Band-Aid for a complex problem.
Border Patrol agents need resources, not troops doing their jobs for them.
Elon Musk said OUT LOUD that Social Security is a ponzi scheme. These people aren’t serious about protecting your benefits.
I am. That’s why I passed the Social Security Fairness Act to make sure teachers, firefighters, and police officers get the benefits they EARNED.
I spent this weekend in Phoenix talking to healthcare organizations about what Republican cuts to Medicaid would mean for Arizona families and providers.
The results would be disastrous. We’re doing everything we can to fight back.
As a Marine, I know that service doesn’t end when you take off the uniform. Grateful to the American Legion for stopping by my office this week to talk about how we can continue fighting for our veterans.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History903 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
903 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-07-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 196 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-52) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-23 | H. Con. Res. 86 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-06-23 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2026-06-22 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (85-5) |
| 2026-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-39) |
| 2026-06-18 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-8, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-17 | S. Res. 616 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.Res. 616 | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Discharge Rejected (44-50) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (55-39) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-16 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (87-8) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 172 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 172 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-48) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 190 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-48) |
| 2026-06-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-06-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Lee Amdt. No. 5804) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 1318 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (52-47) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schiff Amdt. No. 5740) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 5632) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 5812) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Coons Amdt. No. 5457) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Durbin Amdt. No. 5806) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Booker Amdt. No. 5803) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 5485) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5451) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (45-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Warnock Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kim Amdt. No. 5545) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 5501) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-47, 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.