President Donald Trump, EPA Administrator Zeldin and Republicans in Congress are undermining our state’s ability to protect the health of millions of Americans.
From the party that once claimed the mantle of champion of state’s rights, the GOP is now only the party of polluter rights.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|California
Adam B. Schiff
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes31%
No66%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align93%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Adam B. Schiff
U.S. SenatorDemocratCalifornia
SoupScore
Adam B.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 71 sponsored · 330 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, California was consistently granted waivers under the Clean Air Act to implement stronger standards to help ensure cleaner air for our families. By eliminating the filibuster and passing these polluter resolutions-
🧵
President Donald Trump, EPA Administrator Zeldin and Republicans in Congress are undermining our state’s ability to protect the health of millions of Americans.
From the party that once claimed the mantel of champion of state’s rights, the GOP is now only the party of polluter rights.
Donald Trump and one of his closest allies are fighting.
No, it's not Elon Musk. It's someone who played an even more essential role in his efforts to influence the courts.
Let's talk about Leonard Leo.
youtu.be/V_Ne0IAL_g4?...
California’s farmworkers are the backbone of our economy.
They work through grueling conditions – rain and shine, heat and cold, even a pandemic – to feed the nation.
Targeting these workers is just wrong. And meant to stoke fear, not improve public safety.
Donald, do your damn job.
Focus on violent offenders, and stop abusing the military.
I just got back from Los Angeles.
Here's what's happening, how Trump is fanning the flames, and where we go from here:
youtu.be/OGovHDAx3Bo?...
Donald Trump wants to be a strongman.
So he’s abusing taxpayer resources to appear that way. And he’s abusing the military.
Anything but what he was elected to do — make life more affordable for American families.
Monitoring the situation in my hometown of Burbank as a brush fire has led to several evacuations.
As always, make sure to follow any and all evacuation notices from local officials.
The deployment of Marines to Los Angeles was uncalled for, rushed, and potentially dangerous for everyone involved. We’re demanding answers from Sec. Hegseth.
This isn't just a California problem. What Trump does in Los Angeles could become the authoritarian blueprint elsewhere in the country.
Stop sowing chaos, Mr. President, and do your job.
David Huerta, SEIU California President and a leading voice for California workers and communities, was injured, arrested and detained by federal officials.
@schumer.senate.gov, @padilla.senate.gov , and I are demanding answers from the Trump Administration.
Los Angeles — violence is never the answer. Assaulting law enforcement is never ok.
Indeed, doing so plays directly into the hands of those who seek to antagonize and weaponize the situation for their own gain.
Don’t let them succeed.
Violence must stop, and we need to keep the focus on protecting fundamental rights.
There is nothing President Trump would like more than a violent confrontation with protestors to justify the unjustifiable — invocation of the Insurrection Act or some form of martial law.
If the Guard is needed to restore peace, the Governor will ask for it. But continuing down this path will erode trust in the National Guard and set a dangerous precedent for unilateral misuse of the Guard across the country.
The Trump Administration’s calling on the California National Guard without the authorization of the Governor is unprecedented.
This action is designed to inflame tensions, sow chaos, and escalate the situation.
Eid Mubarak!
Wishing every Californian observing Eid al-Adha to enjoy a time of faith, peace, and joy.
I went to the Senate Floor to bring up my resolution urging the Pentagon not to rename ships in the John Lewis class, named after American civil rights legends like the USNS Harvey Milk.
Republicans blocked it.
On the first week of Pride Month no less.
A glimmer of good news.
The reality is she never should have been put through this ordeal in the first place.
Glad all of the public support for her resulted in a reprieve from what would have been a deadly deportation.
Praying for her health and healing.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History851 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
851 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-34) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-47) |
| 2026-02-11 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-02-10 | S.J. Res. 95 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2026-02-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-02-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (58-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-40) |
| 2026-02-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (71-29, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 4287) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (67-33) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (32-67) |
| 2026-01-29 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-55, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-27 | S. 3627 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Final passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Bill Passed (82-15) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (85-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-14 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 98 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2026-01-13 | S.J. Res. 84 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-01-12 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (80-13, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-40) |
| 2026-01-08 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 98 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-01-07 | S.J. Res. 86 (119th) | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Proceed Rejected (43-50) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-01-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-42) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-36) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (50-50) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
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.