Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Law · Source
4.7×
the State House Republican rate of extreme labels
6.8% of 793 statements use an extreme label (54 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 1.4%. Ranks 36th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at America First.
An AI model reads each of Garrett’s posts on X and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 100% of Garrett’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Tennessee, in the top quarter of State House Republicans. The policy areas Garrett talks about and legislates on agree at 0.42 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Garrett sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Extreme labels
6.8%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 36th of 791
Party unity
99.4%
Tennessee House average 96.3% · ranks 10th of 97 · 13 votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
From Tennessee, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.42
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 427th of 504
Policy criticism
2.8%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 561st of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.46
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Garrett, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Garrett is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Garrett says
Garrett stresses bipartisanship less than 70% of State House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0.1% of 793 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 555th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Garrett’s 793 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (793 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Garrett
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion221 statements
28%
32%
440th of 791
Credit claiming128 statements
16%
13%
259th of 791
Policy criticism22 statements
3%
9%
561st of 791
Personal attacks18 statements
2%
3%
280th of 791
Bipartisanship1 statements
0%
2%
555th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Garrett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 28% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 16% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 3% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
793
statements classified
793 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 793 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Garrett; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Garrett does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Garrett used extreme labels in 6.8% of statements, 4.7 times the peer average. 54 statements, most often aimed at America First; peers 1.4%.
- “woke”17
- “radical”7
- “communist”6
- “MAGA”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- America First5
- Donald Trump2
- left2
- Steve Cohen2
- woke mob2
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 6.3% |
| Feb ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 9.1% |
| May ’25 | 31 | 3.2% | 12.9% | 41.9% | 0.0% | 12.9% | 6.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 32 | 9.4% | 3.1% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 9.4% | 3.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 47 | 4.3% | 4.3% | 36.2% | 0.0% | 25.5% | 6.4% |
| Aug ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 30.9% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 2.4% |
| Sep ’25 | 41 | 2.4% | 2.4% | 14.6% | 0.0% | 4.9% | 2.4% |
| Oct ’25 | 54 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 24.1% | 0.0% | 22.2% | 16.7% |
| Nov ’25 | 50 | 2.0% | 0.0% | 6.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 14.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% | 10.7% | 3.6% |
| Jan ’26 | 36 | 8.3% | 0.0% | 52.8% | 0.0% | 27.8% | 5.6% |
| Feb ’26 | 45 | 4.4% | 6.7% | 26.7% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 13.3% |
| Mar ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 25.6% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 5.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 48 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 35.4% | 0.0% | 20.8% | 4.2% |
| May ’26 | 38 | 2.6% | 2.6% | 26.3% | 0.0% | 26.3% | 7.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 45 | 2.2% | 6.7% | 26.7% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 11.1% |
| Jul ’26 | 51 | 2.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 2.0% | 19.6% | 5.9% |
| Aug ’26 | 39 | 5.1% | 0.0% | 43.6% | 0.0% | 5.1% | 5.1% |
| Sep ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.1% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the TN 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Garrett’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at socialists · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · target: migrant criminalSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “communist” aimed at Justin Pearson · target: Justin PearsonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: FauciSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Ilhan OmarSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Kamala Harris · target: Kamala HarrisSource
All 793 statements
Newest first, the TN 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 793 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Garrett talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.42 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 427th of 504).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Garrett talks about. The bills Garrett sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Garrett talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
0%35%
Garrett
Peers
Government Operations and Politics63 statements
29%
18%
Immigration38 statements
17%
5%
Agriculture and Food25 statements
11%
4%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues24 statements
11%
6%
Crime and Law Enforcement24 statements
11%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Garrett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 29% | 18% |
| Immigration | 17% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 4% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Garrett’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 29% | 18% | 11% | 12% |
| Immigration | 17% | 5% | 4% | 1% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% | 7% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 11% | 7% | 11% |
0.42
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 427th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Garrett legislates on exactly the areas Garrett talks about, in the same proportions; 0 means no overlap. It does not say whether the bills match the positions in the statements, only the subjects. Bills Garrett sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Garrett sits at +0.46 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 69% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.43 to +0.50, which understates the uncertainty; from 868 donors and 1,059 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
+0.46
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.43 to +0.50. From 868 donors and 1,059 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Garrett, coloured by its side of 0 (blue left, red right, deeper further out); the bar through it is the approximate range (±1.96 standard errors), which understates the uncertainty; the grey ticks below are the medians of Garrett’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Where Garrett sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Tennessee House97 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Garrett |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 69% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 72% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 83% |
How to read the strips
Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Garrett in every row; the rule is each group’s median. The table under the figure gives the share of each group to the left of Garrett.
Money
Garrett reported $59.9K in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$59.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 5 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)6 squares$3,350
- PACs and other committees94 squares$56.6K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $3,350 | 5.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $56.6K | 94.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $122.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $220.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $202.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $59.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$3,350
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $3,350 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
5
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Tennessee
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Tennessee. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- TN ADVANCE FINANCIAL PAC$7,500
- TENNESSEE BANKERS ASSN PAC$5,000
- TENNESSEE TELPAC$3,000
- TOTAL WINE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,000
- TENNESSEE ACTION COMMITTEE FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Garrett voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans on 99.4% of party-line votes and missed 0.5% of 3,641 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Garrett voted against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans 13 times.
3,641 roll calls Garrett could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee House. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Garrett voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
13
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
Party unity 99.4%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 10th of 97. 3,641 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Garrett, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Garrett
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
99.1%
66th of 97
Party unity
99.4%
96.3%
10th of 97
Show the data
| Row | Garrett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 99.4% | 96.3% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | HJR 8 Memorials, Death - U.S. Senator James Ralph Sasser - FLOOR VOTE: REFER TO COMMITTEE 5/6/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–18 · R 66–1Democrats 0 yea, 18 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2111 Correctional Programs - As enacted, creates the state families of incarcerated individuals advisory board within the department of correction for the purposes of assisting the families of incarcerated individuals. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41. FLOOR VOTE: MESSAGE CALENDAR 2 CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT # 4 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–0 · R 75–0Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SB 1849 Local Government, General - As enacted, enacts the "Essential Governmental Employee Housing Act of 2026"; makes related changes. - Amends TCA Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 9; Title 12 and Title 67. FLOOR VOTE: PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 72–1Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 72 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HJR 1535 Memorials, Recognition - Sidney Ware, Brandon Randolph, Fatima Grandos Macareno, Mu Zeta Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., and No Labels at Middle Tennessee State University - FLOOR VOTE: REGULAR CALENDAR MOTION TO ADOPT 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 72–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 72 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SB 2473 Regional Authorities and Special Districts - As enacted, vacates the present board of commissioners of each existing authority for metropolitan and regional airports and reconstitutes a new governing body; makes related changes. - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 7 and Title 42. FLOOR VOTE: MESSAGE CALENDAR 2 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–19 · R 73–2Democrats 0 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 73 yea, 2 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Garrett most often
- Mary LittletonR3,500 shared votes100%
- Iris RudderR3,539 shared votes100%
- Rick EldridgeR3,581 shared votes100%
- Michael LankfordR1,776 shared votes100%
- Bill PowersR3,523 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Garrett least often
- Justin PearsonD2,036 shared votes69%
- Gabby SalinasD2,897 shared votes77%
- Justin JonesD2,968 shared votes81%
- Shaundelle BrooksD3,408 shared votes81%
- Jack JohnsonR3,325 shared votes82%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Garrett sponsored 32 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 10 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 69% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 62nd of 97).
The bills Garrett sponsored and cosponsored in the TN 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 32 | 29 | 13 | 10 | 10 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Garrett sponsored, ochre blocks bills Garrett cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
69%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 62nd of 97.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Garrett, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Garrett’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HJR 996 | Memorials, Death - Norman Pauley - | Sponsor | Feb 19, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Mar 11, 2026 |
| HB 2450 | Mass Transit - As enacted, enacts the "Subterranean Transportation Infrastructure Coordination Act." - | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Comp. became Pub. Ch. 854 May 5, 2026 |
| HB 2454 | Trusts - As enacted, makes various changes regarding trusts and wills, including permitting confidential information related to trusts that is contained in court filings, including court orders, to be redacted or filed under seal without a prior court order. - Amends TCA Title 32; Title 35 and Title | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Comp. became Pub. Ch. 616 Apr 6, 2026 |
| HR 149 | General Assembly, Statement of Intent or Position - Condemns NES's response to the January 2026 ice storm. - | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Energy(model) | Taken off notice for cal in s/c Business and Utilities Subcommittee of Commerce Committee Mar 18, 2026 |
| HB 2449 | Libraries - As introduced, requires public libraries established by a county, city, or town to adopt a materials reconsideration policy that provides a process by which any legal resident of the county where the library is located may request that the library withdraw an item from the library's coll | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Taken off notice for cal. in State & Local Government Committee Apr 8, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Garrett’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Garrett’s official and campaign websites (weekly for Congress, monthly for the states) and keeps every page’s text, so changes can be read later; it also records social accounts and describes the images Garrett posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H45Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Garrett posted
No images from Garrett’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Garrett is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 8aeb3cc6-b0ca-4af6-ae9d-06aca0c6ae14
- Open States
- ocd-person/8aeb3cc6-b0ca-4af6-ae9d-06aca0c6ae14
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab