🚨Senate Republicans just blocked my bills to make sure Trump can never pay out his political allies and January 6 rioters with your tax dollars. I gave them a chance to redirect this funding to programs that actually help Americans, but they sided with Trump’s corruption. Watch what happened:
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Nevada
Jacky Rosen
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 844
Yes38%
No61%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align90%
Cross-party10%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Jacky Rosen
U.S. SenatorDemocratNevada
SoupScore
Jacky's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 68 sponsored · 225 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Remember to stay cool and hydrated in triple-digit Southern Nevada heat this week!
To help keep everyone safe, I’ve introduced bipartisan bills to protect our drinking water infrastructure during periods of extreme temperatures and ensure extreme heat events are eligible for the same federal resources as other weather events.
Extreme heat waves are becoming more common in Nevada, and while we’re used to the heat, these scorching temperatures are dangerous. In fact, extreme heat is the deadliest weather condition.
Trump promised American taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for his ballroom. He lied. At a time when costs are going up and up, your tax dollars are going to his vanity project.
On the 14th anniversary of DACA, Dreamers are still living with uncertainty because Congress has failed to act. I’ll keep fighting to pass the Dream Act and secure permanent protections for Dreamers in Nevada and across the country.
The United States is the only home DACA recipients have ever known. They’re our neighbors, our coworkers, and our friends who have contributed so much to our communities.
Trump needs to stop dreaming about his gold-plated ballroom and taxpayer-funded slush fund to pay out January 6 rioters and wake up to the cost-of-living crisis Nevadans are facing.
Since he’s been in the White House, the average Nevada family has spent an extra $2,900 on essentials like groceries and gas.
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised he would lower costs for families, and it’s clear he lied. He’s only made things worse.
I pushed the Trump Admin to release $21 million in Continuum of Care funding for Nevada that will help combat homelessness. As long as I’m in the Senate, I’ll keep fighting to make housing accessible for every Nevadan.
All Nevadans deserve to have a roof over their heads, but too many are struggling as the cost of housing continues to rise.
Happy 251st birthday, US Army! To all our Army veterans and soldiers currently serving our nation, thank you for your dedication to defending our freedom.
That’s why Congress needs to stop this slush fund for good through legislation and redirect it to help hardworking families. This fight is not over.
Don't be fooled, this is still a TEMPORARY block. Donald Trump has made it clear he still wants this slush fund to pay out his buddies and January 6 rioters who beat up police officers, and I don’t trust his cronies to put an end to it.
It's ineffective foreign policy to pretend that half of the world's population doesn't exist. Investments in women is a force multiplier and has been proven to strengthen national security outcomes. I urge Sec. Rubio to uphold his commitments – and the law – and implement these critical programs.
Last year, Secretary Rubio committed to me that he would maintain programming at the State Department that supports women and girls around the world. But under his leadership, the State Department has terminated dozens of awards and shuttered key offices associated with these programs.
Senate Democrats said HELL NO to that plan, and successfully forced them to strip all taxpayer funding for Trump’s ballroom out of their budget that they passed last week. Nevadans work hard for their money, and I’m proud to stand up against a terrible misuse of tax dollars.
Senate Republicans tried to use $1 billion of taxpayer dollars for Trump’s ballroom in their partisan budget – while they’ve still done nothing to help American families afford the rising cost of living.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History844 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
844 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (54-44) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
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.