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

Sheldon Whitehouse is an American politician and lawyer serving as the junior United States senator from Rhode Island, a seat he has held since 2007. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island from 1993 to 1998, and as the 71st attorney general of Rhode Island from 1999 to 2003. He was elected to the Senate In 2006, defeating Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee. He was reelected in 2012, 2018, and 2024.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 789
Yes31%
No65%
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 · 88 sponsored · 218 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Where this mess leads now remains to be determined, but it has now all the earmarks of a Trump judicial cover-up of Trump executive misconduct, timed to install another Trump judge on the bench, bending if not breaking the law to do that dirty work.
The dissent by Judge Pillard studiously and calmly dismembers the two Trump judges’ arguments. It’s long, but worth reading. This is what it looks like when Trump judges are more loyal to Trump than to law and duty, all to protect MAGA DOJ.
At all costs, judicial inquiry into Trump Department of Justice contempt had to be stopped, even the MAGA AG trying to “create a conflict” with a bizarre ethics complaint against the United States district judge. Two Trump judges did the deed.
It gets worse: the two Trump judges then used “mandamus” to undo the district court’s unappealable order and halt the contempt proceedings entirely. First, abuse of administrative stay, then abuse of mandamus, to shield Trump mischief from review.
NEWS: Ranking Member @whitehouse.senate.gov & @schumer.senate.gov lead 30 Democrats in opposing EPA's gutting of power plant regulations that protect us from toxic pollution. The Trump Administration is poisoning people & putting us on the fast track to climate change-driven economic disaster.
"In addition to millions of tons of climate pollution every year, fossil fuel-fired power plants spew mercury, soot, and the gases that cause acid rain. The fossil fuel ‘free-to-pollute’ business model, enabled by the Trump Administration, is poisoning people and putting us on the fast track to climate change-driven economic disaster." - Ranking Member Whitehouse
"The Trump administration is proposing loosening regulations for fossil-fuel power plants, threatening Americans’ health by turning a blind eye to the toxic pollutants emitted by the fossil fuel industry all to appease their Big Oil donors." - Leader Schumer
When the Supreme Court does its worst democracy-damaging work for the Republican Party and its billionaire backers, always look for false facts, developed in the Court’s secret, unreviewable, private deliberations.
In Citizens United, it was the false factfinding that the unleashed funding would be transparent, and the corrupting flood of dark money we’ve seen would not happen. The Court persists in that plain, clear error of fact, despite the dark money billions.
In Shelby County, it was the false factfinding that things had changed such that the Voting Rights protection at issue was no longer necessary, even though Congress had found the exact opposite facts after a lengthy, bicameral, bipartisan process.
In Rucho, it was the false fact-finding that courts weren’t able to deal with the gerrymandering question, when in fact court after court — federal and state — had successfully resolved gerrymandering challenges.
The Republican plan was called RedMap and the Court greenlighted it. Like other anti-democratic Court decisions, this one stood on false facts. False fact-finding is a plague in this Court’s most anti-democracy decisions.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
789 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
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-41)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (61-35)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (91-7, 3/5 majority required)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-21End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (44-43)
2025-07-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (46-36)
2025-07-17End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-34)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-31)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-43)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (51-48)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (47-50)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (47-52)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-07-15H.R. 4 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-07-15H.R. 4 (119th)Motion to Discharge H.R. 4NONOMotion to Discharge Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-07-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-47)

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 8 / 16Next →