Donald Trump’s firing of military leaders — four-star General Brown and four-star Admiral Franchetti — along with top legal officers is a betrayal of legions of first rate service members who dedicate their lives to our nation’s defense.
This is a growing national security risk.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Massachusetts
Elizabeth Warren
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 881
Yes26%
No72%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align96%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Elizabeth Warren
U.S. SenatorDemocratMassachusetts
SoupScore
Elizabeth's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 80 sponsored · 347 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
We asked Senate Republicans: is there any millionaire or billionaire rich enough who doesn't need another tax giveaway?
$10M a year? No.
$100M a year? No.
$500M a year? No.
$1 BILLION a year? No.
With Republicans in control: Billionaires win, families lose.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are waging an attack on American consumers — we won't stand quietly by.
The FDIC protects your hard earn money in the bank and helps prevent another financial crash.
Trump and Musk’s move to fire these workers is dangerous.
I led Senate Democrats in pushing back, and now independent investigators are on the case.
Reposted byElizabeth Warren
Senate Republicans just *BLOCKED* Sen. Ossoff’s amendment to protect children’s and maternal health care through Medicaid.
The Senate just voted on a simple idea: If you make $1 BILLION in a year, you don't deserve a tax handout.
Democrats voted yes.
Republicans voted no.
Republicans are planning huge tax cuts for the rich, but they’re not the ones who need a break — working people do.
Tonight, Senate Republicans are charging ahead with their budget proposal.
They’re making clear who matters to them: billionaires and giant corporations.
And who does not: working families.
The Mar-a-Lago crew might not care about hurricanes in Florida.
But gutting disaster recovery will hurt the same people Donald Trump promised to help.
On Tuesday, Senate Democrats will investigate the Trump-Musk attack on American consumers.
I'm inviting Elon Musk. He owes the American people answers on why he’s trying to shut down the financial cop on the beat that prevents big corporations from cheating Americans.
Here's a riddle:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau makes sure you don't get scammed by digital payment companies and car lenders.
Elon Musk’s role as CEO of X Money and Tesla makes DOGE’s takeover of the CFPB a clear conflict of interest.
@schiff.senate.gov and I are pressing for answers.
Last night, Trump promised he wouldn't touch Medicaid.
This morning, Trump endorsed the House Republican plan to slash Medicaid.
It's smoke and mirrors: Trump and Republicans are plotting to take away health care from millions of people to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are messing with your Medicare benefits.
Democrats passed a law to finally let Medicare negotiate with Big Pharma for lower prices.
Now Trump and Musk laid off the negotiators.
That means higher drug costs for you. Nothing efficient about that.
Trump’s shutdown of the JFK Library won’t lower egg prices or make housing more affordable, but it’s part of a retribution tour designed to distract from his agenda to enrich the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone else.
President Trump is firing American workers who monitor bird flu outbreaks, safeguard nuclear facilities, and now those who promote American history in Dorchester – all to help pay for tax breaks for billionaires and giant corporations.
Watch my full conversation with @briantylercohen.bsky.social: www.youtube.com/embed/dQgbte...
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned $21 billion to people who were cheated by big banks and credit card companies.
So why are Trump and Musk gutting an agency that's returning money to people who were scammed?
For them, this has never been about cutting costs.
Republicans are racing forward with a budget that will raise costs for working families.
People will pay more for food, health care, education, and child care – while Republicans plot more tax cuts for billionaires.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are putting your Social Security checks at risk.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History881 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
881 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 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 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) | YES | 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) |
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.