Jeanne Shaheen headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
Born
January 28, 1947
Age 79
Phone
(202) 224-2841
Office
506 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Hampshire

Jeanne Shaheen

Cynthia Jeanne Shaheen is an American politician and former educator serving since 2009 as the senior United States senator from New Hampshire. A member of the Democratic Party, she served from 1997 to 2003 as the 78th governor of New Hampshire. Shaheen is the first woman elected both governor and a U.S. senator, and was the first female governor of New Hampshire.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 776
Yes41%
No56%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align86%
Cross-party14%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Jeanne Shaheen headshot
Jeanne Shaheen
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Hampshire
SoupScore
Jeanne's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 80 sponsored · 281 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

The Mount Washington Observatory is a world-class research institution situated atop our most iconic peak. I was glad to visit the observatory to see firsthand the snowcat they acquired with federal funding I fought for. I even had the honor of being the first one to test it out!
The Big Beautiful Betrayal is threatening the survival of hospitals in the most rural parts of NH. I led a roundtable at MaineHealth Memorial Hospital in North Conway to discuss how we can support affordable care in the North Country despite devastating federal health care cuts.
The new bipartisan bill I’m leading with Senators Maggie Hassan, Susan Collins and Angus King—the Protecting Public Naval Shipyards Act—would codify the hiring freeze exemption we secured for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard workforce. Let’s get this done. www.fosters.com/story/news/l...
It's great to see federal funding headed to the Manchester VA to make much-needed repairs and infrastructure and technology updates. These critical improvements will help keep the facility up and running for the Granite State veterans who rely on the VA for health care. news.va.gov/press-room/v...
For Granite Staters, basic necessities—housing, food, electricity and health care—are too expensive. We need to advance policies that lower costs, like investing in clean energy and extending the ACA Enhanced Premium Tax Credits, but President Trump is focused on doing the opposite.
President Trump's misguided move to impose sweeping tariffs on more than 90 countries will raise prices on everyday goods like food, clothing and housing, at a time when many families are already struggling with high costs. My full statement ⬇️
With insurers now set to hike premiums in every state across this country, and with Republican cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act becoming law last month, it is clear now more than ever that Congress must prioritize lowering health care costs before it’s too late.
ACA Marketplace Plans nationally are seeking a median 18% premium increase for 2026. For proposed rate changes by state and insurer, read the analysis: on.kff.org/4m3EwQy
KFF bar chart showing the distribution of proposed 2026 rate increases among 312 ACA Marketplace insurers in 50 states and D.C. The chart shows that the median proposed increase is about 18%.
The impacts of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Betrayal” on hunger are going to be far-reaching. While millions of Americans lose access to food assistance, grocery stores in rural areas could be forced to shut their doors, imperiling access to food for entire communities.
If ACA premium tax credits expire, it would be a disaster for working families who are already being squeezed by high prices. Health coverage costs would skyrocket for 20 million Americans, and millions more would lose coverage altogether. We must act before it's too late.
I’m leading a new bipartisan bill to exempt America’s four public shipyards, like Portsmouth, from recent hiring freezes and mass layoffs. Our shipyard workforce is an essential part of our national defense – they should have never been subjected to such chaos and uncertainty.
Let's be clear: President Trump's "trade deals" are not a win for America. Tariffs—taxes paid for by Americans—remain higher than they were at the start of this senseless trade war, and it will cost working families more than $2,000 a year as a result.
We should support domestic manufacturing, but the reality is that President Trump’s tariffs are doing the exact opposite. We’ve lost manufacturing jobs every month since he announced global tariffs in April, totaling 37,000 lost jobs in this critical sector.
Good news: The Senate unanimously passed my bipartisan resolution to designate Thursday, August 21 as National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day. It's important that we continue to draw attention to this crisis as we work on solutions that will save lives.
Last night President Trump confirmed that Americans will be facing the highest tariffs since the Great Depression thanks to his reckless and chaotic trade war. Make no mistake: American workers and businesses are going to pay the price. www.shaheen.senate.gov/news/press/s...
Here’s the story of Trump’s economy as his tariffs begin to take effect: costs and inflation are up, job opportunities are down. President Trump promised to lower prices, but thanks to his policies it's becoming even more difficult for Americans to get by.
U.S. employment barely budged in July, while prior job gains were revised to be much weaker than initially thought. It's the first major indicator to point to danger ahead for the U.S. economy.
More than half of the civilian employees at Pease are emergency personnel and air traffic controllers. Proposed cuts could devastate the important role they play in supporting emergency services in the region, including at Portsmouth International Airport.
Prices are already too high. That's why Granite Staters and every business I visit are concerned about President Trump's tariffs.   No matter what happens with the administration's supposed trade "deals," the uncertainty is already causing pain for American families.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
776 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
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-41)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (61-35)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (91-7, 3/5 majority required)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-21End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (44-43)
2025-07-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (46-36)
2025-07-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-34)
2025-07-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-31)
2025-07-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2025-07-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-43)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (51-48)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (47-50)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (47-52)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-07-15H.R. 4 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-07-15H.R. 4 (119th)Motion to Discharge H.R. 4NONOMotion to Discharge Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-07-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-47)
2025-07-15End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-46)
2025-07-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-07-15End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-15Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (69-30)
2025-07-14End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-28)
2025-07-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (46-42)
2025-07-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-07-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-43)
2025-07-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-45)
2025-07-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-07-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-44)
2025-07-09Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (53-43)

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 8 / 16Next →