Gary C. Peters headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Michigan
Born
December 1, 1958
Age 67
Phone
(202) 224-6221
Office
724 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan

Gary C. Peters

Gary Charles Peters is an American politician, lawyer, and former naval officer serving as the senior United States senator from Michigan, a seat he has held since 2015. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the U.S. representative for Michigan's 14th congressional district, which included the eastern half of Detroit, the Grosse Pointes, Hamtramck, Southfield, and Pontiac, from 2009 to 2015.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 844
Yes33%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Gary C. Peters headshot
Gary C. Peters
U.S. SenatorDemocratMichigan
SoupScore
Gary C.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 79 sponsored · 124 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Republicans’ health care cuts are leaving thousands of Michiganders uninsured and making it harder for critical organizations like the Washtenaw County Health Project to support those uninsured families. This will only drive up costs even more for everyone.
This Black History Month, we recognize the amazing contributions of Black Americans that have helped shape Michigan and our country for the better. To honor this important legacy, we must never stop working to deliver the full promise of our nation. Liberty and justice for all.
I voted no on the funding bill today because we need serious reforms to require DHS immigration enforcement operations to be conducted safely and responsibly. I urge our Republican colleagues to let us vote to fund the rest of the government and work with us to rein in DHS.
DHS’ current immigration enforcement operations are not protecting our homeland security or making American communities safer. They are causing chaos and fear. They are violating Americans’ constitutional rights. We need stronger guardrails and accountability.
ICE’s Minneapolis operations are not protecting the residents of the city, but are instead causing chaos and fear. Immediately, there needs to be a full and impartial investigation by local police into this incident, as well as the tragic death of Renee Good.
ICE’s secret memo authorizing agents to enter people’s homes and arrest them without a judicial warrant is unlawful. This Administration’s disregard for our Constitution threatens all of us.  Our government is not above the laws it enforces.
BREAKING: Immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, a memo obtained by AP says.
I warned in a report that DOGE was putting Americans’ most sensitive data at risk. Now, news reports show that DOGE employees accessed your data and signed an agreement that could let them share it with a political group. They broke the law AND endangered your privacy.
Ranking Member @peters.senate.gov’s recent report on DOGE rang the alarm on the risky usage of Americans’ Social Security data. Now we know—DOGE employees accessed your data and signed an agreement that could let them share it with a political group.
The Trump Administration is weaponizing government to intimidate people who disagree with Trump. Senator Slotkin's service to this country and Michiganders speaks for itself. I'm proud that she speaks truth to power.
Last week, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. asked to interview me because of a 90-second video that President Trump didn't like. The intimidation *is the point*. And it’s not going to work. Watch my full response. youtube.com/shorts/rM4PY...
History shows what happens when politicians try to influence interest rates: more inflation, higher prices, and more economic uncertainty. The Trump Administration should focus on policies that will actually lower costs, not risking the independence of the Federal Reserve.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
844 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
2025-10-06S. 2882 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-50, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-03H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-03S. 2882 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-03S. Res. 412 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (51-46)
2025-10-01S. Res. 412 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-10-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-10-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-10-01H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-01S. 2882 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-30H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-30S. 2882 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-29S. 2806 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-09-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-45)
2025-09-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (47-43)
2025-09-19End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (47-45)
2025-09-19H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-19S. 2882 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-09-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-09-17Decision 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 PN55-25YESYESDecision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52)
2025-09-17Motion 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 PN25-28NONOMotion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47)
2025-09-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-16S. Con. Res. 22 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Rejected (36-62)
2025-09-16S.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-51)
2025-09-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-47)
2025-09-15End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-44)
2025-09-15S. Res. 377 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (51-44)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377YESYESDecision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377NONOMotion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-10S. 2296 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-49)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Begin considerationNOT_VOTINGNOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-09-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-09-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-09-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-43)
2025-09-04S. 2296 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13)
2025-09-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-02S. 2296 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (71-23)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNomination Confirmed (72-22)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (59-35)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-42)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)

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 7 / 17Next →