Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Rhode Island
Born
October 20, 1955
Age 70
Phone
(202) 224-2921
Office
530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island

Sheldon Whitehouse

Voting Record — 890
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 96 sponsored · 259 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Creepy billionaires running the country from behind a captured Court is no way to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our great Republic. That is not what the Founders intended then, and it doesn’t serve We the People today.
We built defenses against this corruption, over decades. With those defenses pulled down by the extremists of this billionaire-built Court, it’s time for a jolt of democracy. It’s time to wake up. It’s time for major court reform.
This is their payday. A quick trip to the Oval Office, a big check to a superPAC, and presto! Everyone running the agency fired or brought to heel; agencies delivering results the corrupt donors want; a license for big money corruption.
They even funded academic hothouses (“think tanks”) to propagate self-serving legal doctrines for their Court like “major questions” and “unitary executive.” It’s nonsense, but it aligns perfectly with the goals of billionaire cheaters and polluters.
They even built a false narrative of an “administrative state” made up of “unaccountable bureaucrats” (heard that before?). In fact, agencies are highly accountable to Congress (CRA, e.g.), courts (APA, e.g.) and the president (appointees, e.g.).
Nobody wins except big polluters and economic cheaters who fear sensible and honest regulation, and prefer corrupt influence. That’s very, very few people, but they’re very, very rich, and they give very, very big money to Republicans.
Six extremists on the billionaire-built Supreme Court just upended that: ninety years of its own precedent, and over 100 years of practice, reliance and success. They think they know better, than Congress, the people, their own predecessors, and all fifty states.
Expertise helped them resist being tricked by industry. Independence (“quasi,” anyway) helped them resist corrupt influence. Bipartisanship steadied the ship. Yup, it worked. America became a global leader in regulated areas (securities and pharmaceuticals, e.g.).
For most of our American history, Congress set up agencies and commissions to deal with complex and specialized questions. We made them expert, independent and often bipartisan. Every single one of the fifty states has done the same at some point. It worked. 🧵
One year after the GOP passed the One Big UGLY Bill, the results are in: • 800,000 kids lost SNAP benefits. • 5M lost health coverage. • 1,000+ hospitals, clinics, nursing homes face cuts or closure. • Health care premiums doubled for millions. That's what they're celebrating.
The vast sums of dark, unaccountable money in our political system have shifted the balance of power toward corporate special interests and away from the American people. This ruling is a boon to the GOP and its billionaire donors and their ability to drown out the voices of the American people.
The Supreme Court strikes down longtime campaign finance rules, challenged by VP Vance that place limits on how much a national political party committee can spend in coordination with individual candidates.
Joined @reed.senate.gov to see progress on Westerly’s Tower Street Community Center today! We secured federal funding to build a new community hub that we hope Westerly residents will enjoy for a long time to come.
Civilizations fail when resources fail. For them, in a simpler world, it was sub-Saharan aquifers. For us, in a complex world, it’s climate stability. Climate stability is an essential resource for human well-being.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
890 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
2026-08-08S. 5271 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-46, 3/5 majority required)
2026-08-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2026-08-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-49)
2026-08-08H.R. 6500 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (90-6, 3/5 majority required)
2026-08-08H.R. 6500 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (61-32)
2026-08-07H.R. 6500 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (91-6, 3/5 majority required)
2026-08-07S. Res. 817 (119th)Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2026-08-07H.R. 5334 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (86-11, 3/5 majority required)
2026-08-07H.R. 5334 (119th)Vote on amendmentNOYESAmendment Rejected (32-64)
2026-08-05S.J. Res. 187 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (48-50)
2026-08-05S. Res. 817 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-44)
2026-08-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2026-08-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-43)
2026-08-03H.R. 6500 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (89-4, 3/5 majority required)
2026-07-30S. Res. 817 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (50-47)
2026-07-30S.J. Res. 181 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 181YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (49-50)
2026-07-30S.J. Res. 199 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-52)
2026-07-29S. Res. 817 (119th)End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2026-07-29H.R. 5334 (119th)Begin considerationNOT_VOTINGYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (84-12)
2026-07-28H.R. 5334 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (86-12, 3/5 majority required)
2026-07-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2026-07-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-43)
2026-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-44)
2026-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-47)
2026-07-23S.J. Res. 180 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 180YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-49)
2026-07-22End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2026-07-22End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-44)
2026-07-22Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (62-36)
2026-07-22End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-35)
2026-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2026-07-21Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-48)
2026-07-20End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (43-40)
2026-07-16S.J. Res. 198 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (46-50)
2026-07-16End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-48)
2026-07-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2026-07-15End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2026-07-14S. 4784 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-46, 3/5 majority required)
2026-07-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2026-07-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (46-44)
2026-06-24S.J. Res. 185 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-50)
2026-06-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2026-06-24S.J. Res. 196 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (45-52)
2026-06-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-44)
2026-06-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-44)
2026-06-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2026-06-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2026-06-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2026-06-23H. Con. Res. 86 (119th)Accept House changesYESYESConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48)
2026-06-23Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (67-30)
2026-06-22H.R. 6644 (119th)Accept House changesNOT_VOTINGYESMotion Agreed to (85-5)

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 / 18Next →