The White House’s AI framework takes some steps in the right direction but is severely lacking in substance. Our country desperately needs comprehensive legislation that counters deepfakes, mis- and disinformation, and other growing threats to our democratic elections and markets.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Virginia
Mark R. Warner
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 843
Yes36%
No59%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align90%
Cross-party10%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Mark R. Warner
U.S. SenatorDemocratVirginia
SoupScore
Mark R.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 42 sponsored · 173 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The SAVE America Act does the exact opposite of what its name implies. It places needless burdens on everyone from servicemembers to rural voters to people with disabilities.
Read more here: www.reuters.com/world/us-dep...
Trump’s war of choice is risking the lives of thousands of U.S. servicemembers as he deploys 2,500 more to the Middle East.
Experts estimate that the war in Iran is costing taxpayers $1 billion a day. With that money, Trump could provide tariff refunds to every household in America or fund affordable health care for millions.
Trump is the president of rising costs!
Eid Mubarak! I’m wishing all Muslims a wonderful celebration of Eid al-Fitr — I hope you had a reflective and restorative holy season.
As if lifting Russian sanctions wasn’t enough, now the Trump admin is weighing lifting sanctions on… Iran.
Why would we pad the pockets of our greatest adversaries, particularly when these changes wouldn’t even significantly lower gas prices?
Trump’s war of choice is widening and creating a worldwide energy crisis. We need leaders who understand the severity of the moment and can rise to the occasion. Not leaders who would rather feign ignorance than disagree with Trump.
The SAVE Act isn’t saving anyone.
It’s a regressive, backwards bill that threatens to disenfranchise millions.
I’m voting NO.
I support requiring voters to show identification, like we do in Virginia. However, the SAVE Act discriminates against servicemembers, married women, rural Americans, and anyone else who doesn’t have a passport or their birth certificate on hand. (2/2)
The SAVE Act is the most blatant attempt at voter suppression in ages. (1/2)
Watch the full video here: youtu.be/yqRUhSFO0uo?...
I think a third of all entry-level jobs could be wiped out by AI… and if that happens, we’re all gonna get hit with a massive economic downturn.
I’m working on bipartisan solutions with some unexpected partners to get ahead of these changes and protect your job from AI.
Tulsi Gabbard still won’t give straight answers on her involvement in these election raids.
JUST NOW: I’m calling out how Director Patel’s use of government planes for parties and golf trips makes Americans less safe.
The Trump administration has literally taken hundreds of steps to make us less safe.
Today in the Intel Committee, I’m pressing Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and others on those actions.
Today, I get to publicly press Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and other senior members of the intelligence community on what the heck the Trump administration is doing in Iran, to potentially interfere in our upcoming elections, and more. Stay tuned.
The so-called SAVE Act is nothing but Republicans’ pretext for voter suppression. The bill is undemocratic and un-American.
Last summer, Trump laid off 1,300 State Department workers, including many of the agency's oil and gas experts.
Would Americans be paying less at the pump if those who were supposed to have oversight of the Strait of Hormuz were still on the payroll?
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History843 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
843 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-05-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
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.