Republicans just voted to cut critical investments that benefit all Americans — to help finance their billionaire tax cuts.
If that sounds like déjà vu all over again, it's because they literally did a similar thing two weeks ago. It's just one Great Betrayal after another⬇️
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Maryland
Chris Van Hollen
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 787
Yes26%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Chris Van Hollen
U.S. SenatorDemocratMaryland
SoupScore
Chris's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 59 sponsored · 420 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Maryland and 19 other states are rightfully suing the Trump Admin for illegally shutting down a FEMA program that supports critical flood prevention and other disaster mitigation projects to protect communities here and across the country.
Glad Attorney General Brown is taking on this fight.
Republicans say slashing global health and public broadcasting is about “reducing the debt.” These are the same people who just passed the biggest debt increase IN HISTORY to pay for billionaire tax cuts.
They can say whatever they want — they aren’t fooling anybody.
If your neighbor's house is on fire, you don’t sit back and watch it burn. But that’s exactly what Republicans are doing by slashing funds for global health and foreign aid.
These cuts could kill 14 million people around the world AND make Americans less safe. Cruelty and stupidity.
Senate Republicans are trying to cancel bipartisan investments that Congress already approved — gutting funds for public broadcasting, global health and more — all to pay for their billionaire tax cuts.
Tune in as I discuss why we need to STOP this bill:
Americans rely on public radio for severe weather alerts and more. Senate Republicans want to gut public broadcasting to make room for their billionaire tax cuts, and the consequences could be deadly — especially in rural America.
We must stop this bill.
We don't see a ton of bipartisanship these days, but we saw it last week when my amendment demanding transparency into the Jeffrey Epstein investigations was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Appropriations Committee.
The verdict is in: Attorney General Pam Bondi must release the Epstein records NOW.
What we're seeing in the Senate this week is what we've seen since Trump took office:
Republicans hard at work trying to cut vital services that benefit all Americans — like disaster relief and public radio — to help pay for their billionaire tax cuts.
Yet another betrayal⬇️
The signs have been clear for months, and the numbers are starting to show it: Trump's tariff chaos is raising prices for American consumers and reversing years of progress in the fight against inflation.
Not a great look for the guy who promised to lower prices "on Day 1."
We just saw yet another US citizen killed by violent settlers in the West Bank. There must be an independent, US-led investigation NOW.
Marco Rubio says he's rooting out "radical political ideology" with his mass layoffs at the State Department.
My message to Secretary Rubio: it's not "radical" to believe in human rights, to fight for democracy, to defend the First Amendment.
You’ll be hearing a lot this week about the "rescissions package" that Trump and Republicans are trying to ram through Congress to cancel investments that Congress ALREADY APPROVED and that Trump ALREADY signed into law.
Let me explain why it's critical that we fight this bill⬇️
And by the way — while many of us were there yesterday thanking these public servants, you know who didn’t have the guts to show his face?
Marco Rubio.
He didn’t even have the decency to be at the State Department as these American patriots were shown the door. Cowardice.
Remember when the Trump admin tried to shut down the Social Security call line — falsely claiming 40% of callers were “fraudsters”?
Now they’re scrambling to fix it, because millions of Americans rely on it.
You can’t gut a vital agency and then pretend to care when it breaks.
The U.S. and international community must work urgently to stop these war crimes in Sudan.
For starters, the Trump Admin should demand the UAE stop arming the murderous RSF. Instead, Trump sent them MORE U.S. weapons — and 56 Senators voted to approve the sale.
This must end.
What exactly is “efficient” about setting up bureaucratic red tape that delays life-saving disaster relief efforts?
Nothing — it’s just stupidity, and it is getting people killed.
Trump is using US taxpayer $$ to fund a private mercenary group that's led to hundreds of starving people being shot dead—all part of a sick scheme to drive Palestinians out of Gaza.
Instead of ending the war & freeing the hostages, Trump gave Netanyahu a blank check. Shameful.
Today I stood in solidarity with the over 1300 State Dept public servants who were fired by Trump and Rubio. These are American patriots who’ve dedicated their lives to advancing US interests & values.
This is America in Retreat. Our adversaries are smiling. A bad day for America.
I'm thankful for the city and health officials who continue to respond to this terrible mass overdose incident in Baltimore, and I'm praying for those who remain in critical condition.
We cannot stop fighting to get these deadly drugs out of our communities.
Trump and his family's UAE crypto scheme should alarm every American.
In a hearing this week I asked Richard Painter — a former top ethics official in the Bush Admin — whether it has the stench of corruption. His answer? Watch:
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History787 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
787 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
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.
Page 1 / 16Next →