I’m prepared to fight with every tool at my disposal to stop this effort and to protect the Boundary Waters for future generations.
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.
By including this language in their big budget bill, they have made it clear they don’t care about the science or the data, which shows unequivocally that this type of mining poses an unacceptable risk.
Republicans in Congress are trying to give a foreign conglomerate full permission to build a copper-nickel sulfide mine right on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters watershed and irreversibly pollute this pristine wilderness.
Energy Star has saved *half a trillion dollars* since it started, so this is only going to make you pay more for energy – and they know that.
They know this will raise your costs, but it helps their buddies in the oil and gas industry, who donate big money to their campaigns.
Reposted byTina Smith
"I've been working on Social Security for 50 years. It's gone through wars and pandemics.
It has never seen a threat like Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Frank Bisignano, the nominee to be commissioner.
There's never been a more important time to speak up." - Nancy Altman
Reposted byTina Smith
A vote for Frank Bisignano is a vote to cut Social Security.
I won’t do it.
I voted against his nomination.
Republicans want to cut disability programs to give billionaires more tax breaks. Not on our watch. Disability rights are human rights. Period.
BREAKING: Republicans just installed a self-proclaimed ‘DOGE person’ to be in charge of your Social Security.
Friendly reminder that Elon Musk, head of DOGE, said Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that should be eliminated.
Every Dem voted no.
Since we’re voting on the Social Security Administrator, I wanted to re-up my thoughts. I’m a hard NO on Bisignano.
If there is one thing you hear today, let it be Beth’s story.
Reposted byTina Smith
President Trump’s tariff taxes are raising prices and hurting small businesses.
We joined Beth Benike, owner of Busy Baby and MN Small Business Person of the Year, and small business owners from across the country to call for these reckless tariffs to be reversed.
Today is Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives Awareness Day, a time for us to pay tribute and demand justice.
It should serve as a call to action for all of us to address the epidemic of violence against Native communities, especially women.
Trump’s budget proposal cuts funding for police and fire departments, child care centers and social services for rural communities. He’s cutting basic needs just so he can give tax breaks and special treatment to his rich buddies.
It’s a no from me.
Food poisoning? These guys say you’re shit out of luck — literally.
If you or someone you know needs help, you can call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE(4673) or the StrongHearts Native Helpline at 844-7NATIVE (762-8483).
As Sexual Assault Awareness Month comes to a close, reminder that DOGE is busy gutting programs that help survivors—without explanation. People facing the highest rates of sexual violence — like Native communities – are paying the price.
This is not how we protect survivors.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-01 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-10-01 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | S. 2806 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-43) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-19 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-18 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-16 | S. Con. Res. 22 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62) |
| 2025-09-16 | S.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2025-09-15 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377 | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-10 | S. 2296 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-09-08 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-43) |
| 2025-09-04 | S. 2296 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-02 | S. 2296 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-23) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-22) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-35) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-42) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (78-17) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-19) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
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.