Well-trained law enforcement would de-escalate. Their first instinct should NOT be “shoot first and ask questions later.”
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes73%
No25%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. SenatorRepublicanMississippi
SoupScore
Cindy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 42 sponsored · 205 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Your agents killed one of our citizens in broad daylight.
Reposted byTina Smith
New - Murphy, Schiff, Smith and Warren urge their Democratic colleagues to adopt populist platform
“Our party’s anemic response to the rigging of our democracy and economy in favor of the ultra-wealthy has eroded our credibility with working people"
www.semafor.com/article/01/1...
ICE approaching a teenage girl and U.S. CITIZEN on her way to soccer practice and snooping around her car with giant guns is not making us safer.
All it does is terrorize our kids.
So much admiration for leaders like Zaynab Mohamed. She somehow finds a way to bring optimism during such dark times.
Reposted byTina Smith
Sen. Tina Smith: "I don't know how I could vote for a funding bill for ICE and DHS when so much of what they are doing is illegal, is lawless."
Reposted byTina Smith
In an interview, Tina Smith also ripped top Trump officials for trying to turn a Minneapolis woman’s killing into a political fight: “Where is the humanity here?”
School districts and day care centers across the Twin Cities are closing tomorrow because of fear of ICE and intimidation.
Hear me loud and clear ICE: Stay the hell AWAY from our schools.
Reposted byTina Smith
Just one day after Renee Good was gunned down by ICE in Minneapolis, federal agents under Trump have shot more people, this time in my neighborhood. I am furious.
All they have to do is tell Bondi and Patel to let it happen. Takes one phone call.
We all saw the videos with our own eyes. We all know their narrative isn’t true, no matter how much they want it to be.
If Trump and Vance were truly confident in their (false) narrative around the ICE killing in Minneapolis, they’d allow a joint investigation with state law enforcement.
Reposted byTina Smith
Minnesota Senator Tina Smith on ICE: "Get the fuck out of my town, leave us alone, you are making us less safe and you need to leave.
Reposted byTina Smith
A frustrated Sen. Tina Smith (D) noted the ICE shooting took place only blocks from where George Floyd was murdered by police in 2020.
Follow other responses and live updates:
We cannot be more clear. Leave us the fuck alone.
Homeland Security’s description of what happened and the narrative they’re pushing clearly doesn’t match up with the videos we’re all seeing.
They’re asking people not to believe what we can all see with our own eyes.
I’ve been in contact with DHS demanding more information.
Minnesota is wrapping our arms around you tonight.
I want to express my deepest sympathy to the family and loved ones of the woman killed by ICE this morning.
She should not have died today. This should not have happened. I can’t imagine the heartbreak you are going through and the grief you are enduring.
Please be safe Minneapolis.
A US citizen has apparently been shot by ICE agents in Minneapolis. I’m gathering information, but the situation on the ground is volatile.
ICE should leave now for everyone’s safety.
I’m aware of the reports of an ICE related shooting in Minneapolis and working as hard as I can to get answers. I’ll share any updates as I learn more.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-01 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-05-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | YES | YES | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | NO | NO | ✓ | 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) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
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.