Chris Van Hollen headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Maryland
Born
January 10, 1959
Age 67
Phone
(202) 224-4654
Office
730 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Maryland

Chris Van Hollen

Christopher Van Hollen Jr. is an American attorney and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Maryland, a seat he has held since 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the U.S. representative for Maryland's 8th congressional district from 2003 to 2017 and as a Maryland state senator from 1995 to 2003.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 788
Yes26%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Chris Van Hollen headshot
Chris Van Hollen
U.S. SenatorDemocratMaryland
SoupScore
Chris's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 59 sponsored · 422 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

We're seeing in real time the terrible consequences of Musk & Trump's dismantling of USAID. A devastating earthquake has killed thousands — and many more will die without vital U.S. aid. The AID officials in charge had just gotten their termination letters. America in retreat.
Elon Musk called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." Another billionaire in the cabinet said only "fraudsters" would complain about missing Social Security checks. Tell that to the 73 million Americans who rely on the Social Security they earned from a lifetime of hard work.
🚨Last night Donald Trump signed another illegal executive order, this time taking a chainsaw to unions and collective bargaining — the backbone of our workforce. We will fight this illegal and outrageous assault on unions.
The real lunatic here is Marco Rubio trampling over people’s First Amendment rights. It is shameful that an individual who says his family was the victim of an authoritarian regime would send hooded agents to disappear people because of controversial speech.
Today we learned that RFK Jr. is cutting thousands of jobs at HHS — the department responsible for keeping Americans healthy and safe. They say this is about making America healthy again, but they know damn well this does the exact opposite. They are putting lives in danger.
Pete Hegseth and Michael Waltz are responsible for an egregious mishandling of classified information that put our troops in danger — and they've refused to acknowledge the gravity of this breach.   They need to be fired or do the right thing and resign. Now.
The Musk-Trump administration has been attacking the NIH from Day 1 — disrupting operations while slashing lifesaving medical research. We've even heard DOGE was there TODAY, sowing more fear and chaos. They are compromising our public health and putting American lives in danger.
Let's be clear: Republicans may not have cut Social Security yet, but Elon Musk is already gutting the agency — tearing it apart and making it harder to access benefits.    Forget their fake promises: one way or another they're coming for Social Security.
We’ve seen illegal firings at the FDA — the agency that helps ensure the food we eat and the medicine we take is safe. People will get hurt. We need a Surgeon General’s Warning: Elon Musk’s illegal power grab is dangerous to your health.
Erdoğan — whom Trump has called “a hell of a leader” — just locked up his main political rival as he continues to push Turkey towards full-blown autocracy. We cannot turn a blind eye as dictatorial rulers subvert democracy around the world.
NOAA does a lot of things, but one of the most important things they do is deliver lifesaving forecasts through the National Weather Service. If Elon Musk takes that away, people will die. We are fighting his illegal operation with everything we've got.
This is a time when all institutions need to stand up to Trump’s illegal bullying. This craven move by the Paul, Weiss law firm is capitulation at its very worst. It’s a short road to tyranny when well-heeled firms surrender to political blackmail.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
788 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
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESNOAmendment Rejected (5-94)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-03H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 26 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26YESNOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-83)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 33 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33YESNOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-82)
2025-04-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-04-03H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-42)
2025-04-02H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-02S.J. Res. 37 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Passed (51-48)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-03-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-42)
2025-03-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-03-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-03-27S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-03-26S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-03-26H.J. Res. 25 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (70-28)
2025-03-26H.J. Res. 25 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-43)
2025-03-26End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-03-26End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-44)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-44)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (74-25)

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 13 / 16Next →