Ron Wyden headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Oregon
Born
May 3, 1949
Age 77
Phone
(202) 224-5244
Office
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon

Ron Wyden

Ronald Lee Wyden is an American politician serving as the senior United States senator from Oregon, a seat he has held since 1996. A member of the Democratic Party, he served in the United States House of Representatives from 1981 until 1996. Upon the death of Representative Don Young in 2022, Wyden became the dean of the West Coast's Congressional delegation. He is the dean of Oregon's congressional delegation and serves as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. Known for his libertarian-leaning stances within the Democratic Party, Wyden has been a prominent advocate for privacy rights, internet freedom, and limiting government surveillance, positioning him as a defender of civil liberties.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 851
Yes28%
No70%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Ron Wyden headshot
Ron Wyden
U.S. SenatorDemocratOregon
SoupScore
Ron's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 84 sponsored · 373 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

CHRIS WRIGHT: What happens when the wind blows right now? We turn down natural gas plants and we save 2 cents in reduced natural gas price. We pay a 4 cent subsidy and save 2 cents WYDEN: What you are describing is fiction
Update on where things stand on FISA: this deal is a win. We got the House to back down from an 18 month extension, buying us time to negotiate on real reforms. I'll be fighting like hell for reforms that put your privacy first, and will have more to share soon.
Good summary of last night's ultimately failed shenanigans on FISA from @jamesjbaratta.bsky.social. Reform advocates are in the best position they've been maybe ever. prospect.org/2026/04/17/m...
I sent a classified letter to House and Senate colleagues about a secret interpretation of surveillance law that every American should be concerned about. Representative Massie is right. The Constitution requires EVERY member to vote against a clean reauthorization.
A tweet from Representative Thomas Massie that reads:

I just viewed 2 Top Secret FISA docs.
1) FISA Court opinion that raises serious concerns about FBI implementation of FISA 702.
2) letter by Senator Wyden describing a secret government interpretation of FISA law.
The Constitution requires I vote No on FISA 702 reauthorization.
“Over the past 15 months, the [Trump] administration laid off more than 7,500 Social Security employees, which worsened Americans' access to their earned benefits and gave DOGE free rein to pilfer their most sensitive data.” – Sen. Ron Wyden @wyden.senate.gov
Sen. Wyden: Trump is suing the IRS over his tax returns being released. Will you recommend the taxpayer pay him? IRS CEO: I'm not involved in the matter Wyden: What advice did you get from your ethics office? IRS CEO: Advice from my ethics office being what? Wyden: This is a conflict of interest
WYDEN: Are you gonna recommend the US taxpayer pay Trump $10 billion? BISIGNANO: I'm not rendering an opinion WYDEN: Give me your opinion! You're ostensibly somebody who is supposed to be doing stuff
These issues cut across party lines. Trump and Stephen Miller need both Republicans AND Democrats to keep these powers. If all of this scares you, I encourage you to make your voice heard.
My bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, would close all of these loopholes and finally provide real privacy for Americans. Congress must pass the reforms in this bill and restore Americans’ rights against advances in AI and surveillance tech.
Everyone should be able to agree: The government has no business buying up data on Americans with no checks and oversight. The government has no business using *foreign* surveillance powers to spy on Americans.
I’ve been fighting these abuses for years. But few administrations have posed as big a threat as this one. Congress CANNOT rubber-stamp more unchecked spying powers for any President, let alone Trump.
These powers are terrifying. ICE shouldn’t be able to buy lists of protestors. Kash Patel shouldn't be able to spy on women getting abortion medications. Stephen Miller shouldn’t be able to spy on critics, claiming connections to foreign “antifa” threats."
That’s not all. Current law also lets the Feds buy all sorts of sensitive data on you from shady data brokers, with just a credit card. The Feds can feed that data into powerful AI systems to spy on you. Kash Patel recently confirmed to me he’s buying your location data.
There is a little-known law called Section 702 of FISA. The federal government has abused it over and over to try and spy on Americans, including protestors, elected officials – one NSA employee even spied on people he met through an online dating app.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
851 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
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hassan Amdt. No. 5535)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04S. 2 (119th)Motion (Ossoff Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-50)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 5514)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 5512)YESYESMotion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required)
2026-06-04Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tillis Amdt. No. 5452)NONOMotion Rejected (15-84)
2026-06-04S. 2 (119th)Motion (Schumer motion to commit S.2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-50)
2026-06-03S. 2 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2026-06-03S.J. Res. 188 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (46-53)
2026-06-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2026-06-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2026-06-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2026-06-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-44)
2026-05-20Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-47)
2026-05-19S.J. Res. 185 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185YESYESMotion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47)
2026-05-19End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-47)
2026-05-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-38)
2026-05-19End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-38)
2026-05-18S. Res. 690 (119th)Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (46-43)
2026-05-14S. Res. 690 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 130 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-53)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 141 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (50-50)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 132 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (48-52)
2026-05-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2026-05-13S. Res. 526 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required)
2026-05-13S.J. Res. 163 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (49-50)
2026-05-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2026-05-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2026-05-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-44)
2026-05-11S. Res. 690 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (46-45)
2026-04-30S.J. Res. 184 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-50)
2026-04-30S. Res. 690 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2026-04-29S.J. Res. 99 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-50)
2026-04-29S.J. Res. 139 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (46-52)
2026-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2026-04-28S.J. Res. 124 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 124NONOPoint of Order Well Taken (51-47)
2026-04-28S. Res. 690 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2026-04-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-37)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-49)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-50)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855)YESYESMotion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-52)
2026-04-23S. Con. Res. 33 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (25-73)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794)NONOMotion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-23Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414)NONOMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required)
2026-04-22Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)

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 2 / 18Next →