Look, I am all in for maximizing government efficiency. I even passed a law that got way more transparency into how we’re spending. But taking a hatchet to all federal funding, to agencies that save Americans money, to critical medical grants… that just creates chaos & disorder.

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 — 825
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 · 41 sponsored · 172 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
For all his talk about bringing costs down “on day 1” inflation has been rising under Trump… and his chaotic tariff plans and funding freezes are sure to further increase costs and make people lose their jobs, too.
For all the recipients of NIH grants across Virginia.
For all the kids who shouldn’t have to grow up contracting polio, measles, or mumps.
For all the science-based progress we SHOULD be pursing to make Americans healthier.
I am a NO on RFK Jr.
Look, we ARE facing a health crisis. I want to do everything I can to fight chronic illness and promote access to healthy food.
But RFK ignores science & grifts off stoking fears about vaccines. He’s not going to make Americans healthier.
For that reason, I’m a NO on RFK.
So interesting…
Thank you to Saunders Bros Farm for dropping off some incredible Virginia apples for my office!
Going to keep fighting for a more stable trade outlook so our Virginia producers can keep exporting the most delicious apples across the globe.
Wednesday update: explaining why I’m a definite, resounding NO on RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
Donald Trump ran on lowering prices. It’s not happening.
The CFPB isn’t even funded by your tax dollars… and it’s still raking in BILLIONS in recouped money to help defrauded Americans.
The Trump admin isn’t going after it because of “efficiency.” It’s going after it so Elon and other scammers and grifters get a free pass.
Time and time again, we are seeing results: Trump pushes for chaos; we fight back; he backs down.
In addition to rescinding the federal funding freeze & several court-ordered pauses, the Trump admin heeded my alarm and backed down on the hiring freeze for some park rangers.
Trump’s admin is:
Firing highly-qualified FBI agents that investigate terrorism
Freeing Jan 6 rioters who violently assaulted cops
Gutting the federal agency that goes after scammers and big banks
Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes and call the CFPB “woke and weaponized.”
The CFPB fights overdraft and junk fees, goes after lenders that target servicemembers with predatory loans, and has returned $20 billion to Americans.
This is a giveaway to scammers & crooks.
Today’s update: doing what I can to stop Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s disastrous pick to protect our national security as DNI.
Spending the day hearing directly from Virginians.
Glad to answer questions and provide an update on my work in Vienna — thank you to Navy Federal Credit Union for having us & your great work providing banking services for our armed forces!
Russ Vought wants to “traumatize the federal workforce.”
He’s a key Project 2025 author.
He’s a big part of the reason why Head Starts, Community Health Centers, and other essential federal programs are having a hard time accessing funding.
I vote HELL NO.
Gutting USAID cuts 10,000 American jobs.
It means American farmers, who sold some of their harvest to USAID to feed malnourished kids, are doing less business.
It limits our ability to fight terrorism.
This isn't about efficiency. It's about creating chaos.
Remember the federal funding freeze that the Trump admin realized was illegal? The one they supposedly rescinded?
Well, Community Health Centers can’t access their funding anyways. @kaine.senate.gov and I are pushing for answers before rural communities lose access to health care.
Elon and Trump are trying to buy out the CIA and NSA agents that keep Americans safe. They fired FBI agents that have accomplished careers fighting terrorism. They released violent Jan. 6 rioters that assaulted police officers.
Joining @podsaveamerica.crooked.com to talk about my vehement NO on Vought – a Trump nominee and Project 2025 author who wants to “traumatize the federal workforce” – tune in. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOQs...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History825 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
825 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 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 (51-46) |
| 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 (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 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 | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-35) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (80-17) |
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.