Congress created TPS in 1990 to protect human lives by providing refuge to those fleeing dangerous circumstances.
The law was never meant to be a trapdoor to be used by a hostile administration to uproot families who've lived here for years, while crises in their home countries continue. (3/8)
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Democrat|Maine District 1
Chellie Pingree
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 612
Yes42%
No53%
Present1%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Congressional District 1
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Chellie Pingree
U.S. RepresentativeDemocratMaine District 1
SoupScore
Chellie's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 23 sponsored · 176 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Maine is home to hundreds of TPS holders who've fled horrific conditions, followed the rules, paid taxes, sent their kids to school, and built lives in our communities.
Because of Trump's anti-immigrant agenda, and a SCOTUS all too willing to rubber stamp it, their futures are in jeopardy. (2/8)
🧵
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Administration to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians, and potentially so many others, is a devastating act of cruelty. (1/8)
Already back home in Maine because Republicans cut our week short, but what else is new! Typical dysfunction and inability to govern from this Republican majority.
Here's what went down.
Barney always had a story. It was one of the things I loved about him—along with his wit, wisdom, biting remarks, and genuine warmth.
As we honored Barney on the Hill, it was clear how much his work changed history + impacted the lives of so many.
What a legacy. What a life.
I'll miss him dearly.
Full episode 👇
Trump promised to take on toxic chemicals.
Then his Admin went to SCOTUS and sided with Bayer/Monsanto.
This is a total betrayal of MAHA—and the *many* people who've been harmed.
I joined Zen Honeycutt, Glyphosate Girl, @booker.senate.gov + Tim Ryan on the WSITY? pod to talk through what's next.
Rep. McIver needs to be acquitted, and ICE needs to know that the people’s elected representatives will not be bullied into submission.
I stand with LaMonica. Today, tomorrow, and every day until this flagrant miscarriage of justice is rectified.
What’s happening to my colleague, LaMonica McIver, is nothing short of a political witch hunt.
Rep. McIver attempted to access an ICE facility in her district, to exercise her CONSTITUTIONAL oversight duties.
DOJ is clearly trying to prevent Members from conducting ANY oversight of ICE facilities.
As Ranking Member on the subcommittee that oversees the EPA, I’ll be pushing Lee Zeldin for answers.
With SCOTUS's decision this morning to shield Bayer from liability at the state level, it’s critical that the public understand how giant chemical companies have rigged the system in their favor.
For years, concerns have been raised about Monsanto's involvement in studies that made the case for glyphosate.
Thanks to this reporting, we now know of another safety study that Monsanto helped ghostwrite—and that the EPA knew this and continued to cite the study anyway!
This is a HUGE deal.
EPA must be transparent, science-based, independent, and accountable to the public—not the industries it is supposed to regulate.
We have won this fight before and we must again.
Awful ruling today out of SCOTUS.
After Trump put his finger on the scale, Bayer won what it couldn't get through Congress: a shield from accountability.
If SCOTUS is going to put more weight on EPA’s review process, then Congress + POTUS have a duty to fix the dangerous gap this decision exposes.
You have a chance to make your voice heard too, by submitting a comment at the link below. This is one fight where public pressure really can make a difference.
When we fight back on things like this, we WIN! So spread the word—and tell Vought and Trump to keep their HANDS OFF federal grants! (6/6)
@democrats-appropriations.house.gov and @delauro.house.gov tried to stop this insane rule in its tracks today in committee, but Republicans blocked it.
Let me be clear: we will continue fighting this with everything we’ve got. (5/6)
Federal grants are one of the most effective ways we have of using taxpayer $ to strengthen communities, encourage R+D, and improve lives.
We can't let partisan hacks like Russ Vought usurp Congress's power in service of their own corrupt and twisted agenda. (4/6)
This is just the next phase in their ridiculous crusade to politicize every corner of the government—and punish anyone who doesn't fall in line.
NIH research on HIV prevention? Education projects that help underserved kids? These are the kinds of initiatives that could be under threat. (3/6)
We’ve seen many examples of how petty this Administration can be with federal funding: illegally freezing already-approved grants; cancelling projects for mentioning climate, race, or gender.
Maine has been a target, too, with the Admin attacking programs as basic as giving babies their SS#s. (2/6)
🧵
Russ Vought—a chief architect of Project 2025—wants to give veto power over every federal grant to Trump loyalists (like himself).
This is outrageous. These grants are supposed to be nonpartisan and driven by facts and science. They should NOT be subjected to ideological litmus tests. (1/6)
Even worse, Russ Vought wants to buy ships OVERSEAS in places like Japan and Korea.
It's outrageous.
The Defense bill should make strategic investments in *American* readiness, which includes a skilled (union!) workforce.
Republicans are letting the admin drive the decline of our industrial base.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History612 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
612 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-10 | H.R. 2096 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-10 | H. Res. 489 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-10 | H. Res. 489 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-09 | H. Res. 481 (119th) | Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Passed |
| 2025-06-09 | H. Res. 488 (119th) | Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Passed |
| 2025-06-09 | H.R. 2035 (119th) | Fast-track passage | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Passed |
| 2025-06-06 | H.R. 2966 (119th) | Final passage | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Passed |
| 2025-06-05 | H.R. 2987 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-05 | H.R. 2987 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-06-05 | H.R. 2931 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-05 | H.R. 2931 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-06-04 | H.R. 2483 (119th) | Final passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Passed |
| 2025-06-04 | H.R. 2483 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-06-04 | H. Res. 458 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-04 | H. Res. 458 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-03 | H.R. 1804 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-06-03 | H.R. 1642 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-22 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-22 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-05-22 | S.J. Res. 31 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-22 | H. Res. 436 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-22 | H. Res. 436 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-22 | H. Res. 436 (119th) | Consideration of the Resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-22 | H. Res. 436 (119th) | Consideration of the Resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-22 | — | Motion to Adjourn | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-05-20 | S.J. Res. 13 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-20 | H.R. 1223 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-20 | H. Res. 426 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-20 | H. Res. 426 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-19 | H.R. 1286 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-19 | H.R. 1263 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-15 | H.R. 2240 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-15 | H.R. 2255 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-14 | H. Res. 352 (119th) | Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-14 | H.R. 2243 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-14 | H. Res. 405 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-14 | H. Res. 405 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-14 | H.R. 2215 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-13 | H.R. 249 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-13 | H. Con. Res. 30 (119th) | Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-08 | H.R. 276 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-08 | H.R. 276 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-05-07 | H.R. 881 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-07 | H.R. 1503 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-06 | H. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-06 | H. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-05 | H.R. 36 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-05 | H.R. 530 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-01 | H.J. Res. 88 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-05-01 | H.J. Res. 78 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
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.