Then you’d better stand by your CBAM against Trump’s corrupt fossil-fuel-funded attacks! Every remaining pathway to climate safety requires ending fossil fuel’s crooked free-to-pollute business model. CBAM is the best vehicle for that — it’s truly our last lifeboat. www.politico.eu/article/spai...
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 96 sponsored · 259 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
If the guy was deliberately trying to anger Republican senators, he couldn’t do much better than putting his despised slush fund front and center with elections looming for them. www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...
There’s an old-fashioned name for this: corruption. www.canarymedia.com/articles/fos...
As climate change takes out the places and activities people love . . . .
buckrail.com/in-hot-water...
Subtraction is such a novel concept. Who could have predicted?
www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...
They don’t want people to see what a wreck they’ve made of the place. Empty, echoing, failed — a mob bust-out gone wrong.*
*What do I mean by that? Usually gangsters tried to keep the place going for a while as they looted it. This was a botched job.
www.nytimes.com/2026/07/30/u...
BTW, you want litigation, do terrible claims payment. In the aftermath of disaster, do people want lawsuits, or quick fair claims payment? Fail at the latter, you get the former. Screwing customers more by denying access to lawyers is a lousy solution, except for insurers (donors).
After Hurricane Debby, the state-backed insurer zero-dollared more than 2/3 of Floridians’ claims. It’s their position that more than 2/3 of Floridians are fraudsters entitled to nothing? Or is Florida’s political elite covering for insurance and fossil fuel donors?
Florida officials say it’s not climate change but their own citizens’ massive fraud that’s driving the home insurance crisis. Nice, huh? Here’s how many Floridians get zero dollars after an insurance claim:
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Trump is more focused on collecting money for his pet projects than he is on governing.
Offering donors special access in exchange for tens of millions of dollars isn’t draining the swamp — it’s expanding it.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Every day the Iran war drags on, Americans pay the price.
Donald Trump has little incentive to end it when his billionaire friends keep getting richer while working people struggle to fill their tanks and pay for the basics.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” Blanche had to lie, and lie about lies, and walked himself into box canyons of lying. They’re hiding documents, pretending they don’t exist, which would only worsen the collusion. The truth will out.
9. The documents behind the scenes between the White House, “Trump’s lawyers,” and Blanche’s crooked DOJ as this collusive scam was cooked up, will be telling — likely damning. We’ve demanded the documents be preserved. No shredding, kiddies.
www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release...
8. Either way, the federal judge found collusion and sent her decision to NY Bar authorities, where Blanche already faces a complaint. Their investigation could expose the tangled web. The judge reserved decision on “fraud on the court”; she too could investigate. And the Florida Bar.
7. If he doesn’t enter an appearance, and the “Trump lawyers” appeal for him, it’s a new chapter in the collusion. They have to practice in that court, and one of Trump’s lawyers has already been referred for bar discipline there, so they have their own problems to worry about.
6. It gets thicker if someone appeals. Blanche (very weirdly) filed no DOJ pleadings in the case, probably to evade disciplinary action for the collusive “fraud on the court” problem he has. If he enters an appearance to appeal, BOOM, he’s solidly under the court’s authority.
5. The slush fund was established in a document negotiated and signed between Blanche (signed by his stooge) and “Trump’s lawyers.” Where are the communications around that, which Blanche says he didn’t have? Where’d the deal come from? Was it immaculate conception?
4. He pretends he’s had no communication with “Trump’s lawyers.” Strange, since someone for DOJ “negotiated” the “deal.” Strange, since Trump’s lawyers spoke for DOJ in a pleading. Strange, since the federal judge found there was “collusion,” which takes both sides.
3. Tillis and Cornyn trying to extract an actual end to the slush fund and the Trump tax fraud amnesty, and being rebuffed, proves that the promise was false. Trump wants BOTH, and weasel Blanche is stuck with his client’s decision. So he squirms. And lies.
2. For instance, all Blanche said was that the Fund was dead and would not be set up. How do you weasel around that? Add one more collusive codicil to the crooked deal, and there’s a brand new vehicle for the $$$. “Hey, I said we wouldn’t use ‘the Fund,’ and we didn’t.”
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-46) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (77-23) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-38) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-35) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (80-17) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (78-20) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-42) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-01-28 | H.R. 23 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-28 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (77-22) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (97-0) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (68-29) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-23) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-34) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-39) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (72-26) |
| 2025-01-22 | S. 6 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46) |
| 2025-01-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (99-0) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (64-35) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (75-24) |
| 2025-01-17 | S. 5 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-49) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (70-25) |
| 2025-01-13 | S. 5 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10) |
| 2025-01-09 | S. 5 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 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 18 / 18