How can you Make American Healthy Again when people are afraid to eat their vegetables?
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 903
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 · 43 sponsored · 207 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
So letting ICE investigate itself? Americans deserve real accountability, not another cover up from this Administration.
This is tragic news. Holding the families and loved ones of these brave service members in my heart and offering my deepest condolences.
He feels cornered. He sees what will happen when we take back power, so he’s lashing out the only way he knows how.
Election conspiracy theories didn’t save him in 2020. They won’t save him in 2026.
Booking it back to Minnesota to visit folks on the front lines of the wildfires up in Ely and around the Boundary Waters. Stay safe, Minnesota.
These guys should have to look these kids in the eye before they cancel their hope for a new cancer treatment solely because it predominantly helps kids who don’t look like them.
Cancer doesn’t give a shit about DEI policies. The disease will continue impacting some populations more than others and refusing to research why is asinine and hurts us all.
Reposted byTina Smith
TINA SMITH: Researchers in MN made a breakthrough in childhood cancer in Black kids with a grant. But it seems that according to your proposed rule, this type of research wouldn't allowed bc it's 'DEI.'
VOUGHT: We are against DEI policies. We have intended to rid of them whenever we possibly can.
Naïve to think he was ever going to end ICE traffic stops. He LIKES that his secret police force can do whatever they want with no repercussions. The cruelty is the point.
Grateful to these rangers and all the first responders in the area as they risk their own wellbeing to keep us safe.
Please listen to local guidance from your County Sheriff’s office, Minnesota DNR and the Forest Service and pay close attention to burn bans.
The entirety of the Boundary Waters is being evacuated due to wildfires, led by eight fearless Wilderness Rangers paddling around to campsites.
1,000,000 acres.
2,000 campsites.
4 teams of rangers.
2 rangers per canoe.
ICE is beyond repairing. We can't reform our way out of this. Strip it down to the studs and start over.
Long way to go before we get true justice
The feds are finally sharing evidence from Renee Good and Alex Pretti's killings, but this took way too long, and it's not enough. Minnesotans' trust has been fundamentally broken.
Thank you to all the first responders and firefighters putting themselves in harm’s way to combat the wildfires up near the Boundary Waters. Everyone in the area should listen to the guidance of state and local officials.
Stay safe Minnesota!
400,000 rural homes can now be saved from falling into disrepair
Homes are for families — not private equity!
Refusing any type of independent investigation is not normal. Blocking local law enforcement from evidence is not normal.
ICE agents feel emboldened because they know their higher ups will protect them by lying to the public about what happened. How can we trust any sort of investigation solely done by an agency that does whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with no repercussions?
Justice for Lorenzo Salgado Araujo
Intrigued by the pickle pie at the Minnesota State Fair this year. Not opposed, just…intrigued.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 5779) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 5556) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hassan Amdt. No. 5535) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Ossoff Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 5514) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 5512) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tillis Amdt. No. 5452) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (15-84) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Schumer motion to commit S.2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-06-03 | S. 2 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2026-06-03 | S.J. Res. 188 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 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) |
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.