Putting RFK Jr. in charge of the nation’s public health is a huge mistake.
When dangerous diseases resurface and people can’t access lifesaving vaccines, all Americans will suffer — and RFK Jr.’s family could keep getting richer thanks to his serious conflicts of interest.
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.
Elon Musk is developing a new payment platform called “X Money.”
Guess which agency would be making sure that Elon’s new project couldn’t scam you or steal your sensitive personal data? The CFPB.
In Massachusetts, researchers are working hard to develop lifesaving treatments for awful diseases.
Donald Trump just slashed the federal funding that makes their work possible.
@markey.senate.gov and I are pressing for answers.
www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/12/m...
We cannot trust RFK Jr. to make health care decisions that will affect millions of families.
RFK Jr. is disqualified, dangerous, and cannot be given the power to make critical health care decisions for millions of Americans.
I'm headed to the floor to put up a fight against his nomination.
Trump, July 2024: We will drive prices down very fast.
Trump, August 2024: I will immediately bring prices down starting on day one.
Trump, December 2024: I won an election based on that, we’re going to bring those prices way down.
Have prices gone down? Nope.
This is like a bank robber getting to fire the cops and disable the alarms just before he strolls into the bank lobby.
@repmaxinewa.bsky.social and I led nearly 200 of our colleagues in demanding the removal of Elon Musk’s operatives from the CFPB.
The CFPB was created to protect people from getting scammed.
Now, we need to say no to Elon Musk and fight for the little agency that fights for us.
Trump campaigned on lowering costs, but today’s inflation data shows he's failing to deliver on that promise.
President Trump should be paying attention to rising inflation instead of trying to gut the CFPB, which saves Americans money and protects them from Wall Street scams.
It’s no secret that Chair Powell and I disagree on a lot, but today we agreed: without the CFPB, there is no federal regulator making sure giants banks don't cheat you.
Reposted byElizabeth Warren
Trump and Musk don't want watchdogs like the CFPB protecting the people.
They want big banks and bad actors to run rampant and take people for a ride.
They want to pillage the government and make themselves rich.
But we won't let them.
youtube.com/shorts/ibBqx...
Republicans in Congress want Americans struggling to afford student loan payments to shell out nearly $200 more each month to fund tax cuts for billionaires.
Tell me how this lowers your costs?
We’re here to fight for the agency that fights for us, and we will not let up until we win.
Elon Musk is trying to shut down the CFPB, the agency that has forced big banks and corporations to return more than $21 BILLION to families they cheated.
Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and no one — not the President, not Musk, not Vought – can illegally shut down its work.
There is power in fighting back, and we will not let up in Congress, in the courts, or in public until we win this fight.
President Trump campaigned on lowering costs. But he’s letting billionaire Elon Musk and Project 2025 Architect Russ Vought kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
If they succeed, CEOs on Wall Street will once again be free to cheat you out of your savings.
Reposted byElizabeth Warren
TOMORROW: Join us at the CFPB with @elizabeth-warren.bsky.social & @repmaxine.bsky.social to Stop Elon Musk’s Billionaire Grift!
⏰4:15
📍CFPB Building, Washington D.C.
www.mobilize.us/indivisible/...
It’s a mistake for the Marine Corps to fly Ospreys, an aircraft that killed 64 members of our military, over the Super Bowl.
We should be celebrating the Marine Corps for 250 years of powerfully important service, not adding to the grief of families who lost their loved ones.
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.