27% of 1,110 statements criticize a policy (305 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 11th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Arrington’s Congressional Record speeches, posts on X, newsletters and press releases and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
0
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. 10% of Arrington’s statements use an extreme label, 3.3 times the House Republican average of 3.0%. The policy areas Arrington talks about and legislates on agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of House Republicans.
The measures on which Arrington sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy criticism
27%
House Republicans average 15% · ranks 11th of 221
Extreme labels
10%
House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 7th of 221
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.70
House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 31st of 221
Party unity
99.3%
House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 33rd of 221 · 24 votes against the majority of House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+1.24
More conservative than 79% of House Republicans · ± 0.01
Attendance
96.7%
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 160th of 221 · 674 roll calls
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Arrington, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Arrington is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Arrington criticizes policies more than 95% of House Republicans. Policy criticism in 27% of 1,110 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 11th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Arrington’s 1,110 statements in the 119th Congress (647 posts on X, 215 press releases, 174 Congressional Record speeches, 74 newsletters) 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
Arrington
House Republicans, average of 221
0%20%40%60%80%
Arrington
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion807 statements
73%
68%
79th of 221
Credit claiming484 statements
44%
37%
72nd of 221
Policy criticism305 statements
27%
15%
11th of 221
Bipartisanship80 statements
7%
9%
116th of 221
Personal attacks24 statements
2%
2%
71st of 221
+ Show the data
Arrington's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
Row
Arrington
Peers
Policy discussion
73%
68%
Credit claiming
44%
37%
Policy criticism
27%
15%
Bipartisanship
7%
9%
Personal attacks
2%
2%
1,110
statements classified
647 posts on X, 215 press releases, 174 Congressional Record speeches, 74 newsletters.
posts on X
press releases
Congressional Record speeches
newsletters
+ Show the data
Arrington's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
647
press releases
215
Congressional Record speeches
174
newsletters
74
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is Arrington; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Arrington does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Arrington used extreme labels in 10% of statements, 3.3 times the peer average. 111 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 3.0%.
“radical”61
“woke”34
“far left”15
“extreme”11
“MAGA”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Left9
radical Left9
Biden administration6
Democrats6
gender ideology5
+ − 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 119th Congress
+ Show the data
Monthly rates for Arrington, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
61
11.5%
47.5%
77.0%
13.1%
59.0%
19.7%
Feb ’25
118
1.7%
27.1%
70.3%
4.2%
36.4%
10.2%
Mar ’25
57
5.3%
21.1%
70.2%
7.0%
43.9%
8.8%
Apr ’25
88
0.0%
27.3%
60.2%
11.4%
33.0%
3.4%
May ’25
99
2.0%
30.3%
65.7%
3.0%
35.4%
7.1%
Jun ’25
85
2.4%
24.7%
68.2%
4.7%
35.3%
11.8%
Jul ’25
100
1.0%
11.0%
65.0%
4.0%
48.0%
4.0%
Aug ’25
44
0.0%
15.9%
86.4%
9.1%
75.0%
6.8%
Sep ’25
65
0.0%
35.4%
75.4%
16.9%
46.2%
18.5%
Oct ’25
67
0.0%
37.3%
79.1%
4.5%
25.4%
19.4%
Nov ’25
28
3.6%
28.6%
64.3%
7.1%
39.3%
28.6%
Dec ’25
38
0.0%
23.7%
81.6%
7.9%
60.5%
5.3%
Jan ’26
27
0.0%
29.6%
92.6%
18.5%
70.4%
14.8%
Feb ’26
39
0.0%
30.8%
82.0%
15.4%
61.5%
5.1%
Mar ’26
15
0.0%
53.3%
93.3%
6.7%
46.7%
6.7%
Apr ’26
35
8.6%
28.6%
77.1%
5.7%
45.7%
0.0%
May ’26
21
0.0%
38.1%
85.7%
0.0%
47.6%
9.5%
Jun ’26
47
0.0%
38.3%
63.8%
2.1%
36.2%
8.5%
Jul ’26
58
5.2%
10.3%
79.3%
6.9%
36.2%
8.6%
Aug ’26
2
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’26
11
0.0%
36.4%
81.8%
0.0%
27.3%
0.0%
Oct ’26
5
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
+ − 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 119th Congress, 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
In Arrington’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
House Passes Arrington Budget Resolution to Support our Troops and Secure our Elections
Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Con.Res.113, advancing the reconciliation process to support our troops, secure our elections, and strengthen our food supply. House Budget Ch…
Jul 22, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Immigration; Taxation; extreme label “MAGA, radical” aimed at MAGA Republicans, Democrat Party; target: Joe Biden · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 25, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Energy · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 5, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “extreme, radical” aimed at social policies, gender ideology · 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
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · credit claiming · target: Joe BidenSource ↗
·Press releases
House Passes Arrington Budget Resolution to Support our Troops and Secure our Elections
Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Con.Res.113, advancing the reconciliation process to support our troops, secure our elections, and strengthen our food supply. House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (TX-19) issued the following statement:
“I am humbled by the steadfast unity and unwavering deter…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Taxation · extreme label “MAGA, radical” aimed at MAGA Republicans, Democrat Party · target: Joe BidenSource ↗
·Congressional Record
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the American people suffered through 4 years of lawlessness, incompetence, and habitual failure under Joe Biden and Democratic leadership, one self-inflicted disaster after another: border chaos, rampant crime, feckless foreign policy, spending-induced inflation that we haven't seen in a half a century, a crushing cost-of- living crisis, and the w…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Taxation · extreme label “MAGA, radical” aimed at Republicans, Democratic Party · target: Joe BidenSource ↗
·Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just, again, setting the record straight for the American people, the only moneys we are spending are moneys that the Democrats in the House and Senate agreed with us to spend to operate the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and CBP. Then, they reneged on it. They went back on their word, and they shut the Department of Homeland Securit…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource ↗
·Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and conveniently, some of my Democrat friends have had a bad case of amnesia. I am going to remind the American people that when Joe Biden and the Democrats had control of this town, this Chamber, Congress, and the White House, they took inflation from 1.4 percent all the way past 9 percent. We had a 22-percent increase cumulative of prices of everyday goods that Americans depend on. It was…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Labor and Employment · Taxation · target: DemocratsSource ↗
All 1,110 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
+ − 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: 647 posts on X, 215 press releases, 174 Congressional Record speeches, 74 newsletters.
Economics and Public Finance is what Arrington talks about most: 44% of policy statements, 2.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 31st of 221).
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 Arrington talks about. The bills Arrington sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Arrington talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
Arrington
House Republicans average
0%12%24%36%48%
Arrington
Peers
Economics and Public Finance353 statements
44%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security225 statements
28%
24%
Immigration194 statements
24%
13%
Health175 statements
22%
15%
Government Operations and Politics157 statements
19%
19%
+ Show the data
Policy areas Arrington talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
Row
Arrington
Peers
Economics and Public Finance
44%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security
28%
24%
Immigration
24%
13%
Health
22%
15%
Government Operations and Politics
19%
19%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Arrington’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for 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 48%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
Statements
Bills
House Republicans
+ Show the data
Arrington's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
House Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
House Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance
44%
19%
7%
2%
Armed Forces and National Security
28%
24%
7%
8%
Immigration
24%
13%
8%
5%
Health
22%
15%
12%
11%
Government Operations and Politics
19%
19%
11%
12%
0.70
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 31st of 221.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Arrington legislates on exactly the areas Arrington 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 Arrington sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Arrington sits at +1.24 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 79% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.23 to +1.25, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,241 donors and 4,846 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”.
+1.24
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +1.23 to +1.25. From 2,241 donors and 4,846 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Arrington, 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 Arrington’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 Arrington sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
+ Show the data
Arrington's CSIP score of +1.24 placed against House Republicans, All House.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Arrington
House Republicans
221
+1.0
79%
All House
439
+0.3
90%
+ − 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 Arrington 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 Arrington.
Arrington raised $1.7M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 6.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission 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.
$1.7M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 158 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
Itemized individual (over $200)13 squares$227.8K
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$14.5K
PACs and other committees36 squares$622.5K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)50 squares$846.4K
+ Show the data
Sources of Arrington's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$227.8K
13.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$14.5K
0.8%
PACs and other committees
$622.5K
36.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$846.4K
49.5%
+ − 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. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
Arrington's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
Item
Value
2020 cycle
$2.5M
2022 cycle
$2.1M
2024 cycle
$3.3M
2026 cycle
$1.7M
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state.
Virginia$19.8K
District of Columbia$6,000
Florida$5,750
Maryland$4,500
New York$3,995
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
Arrington
Median
0%20%40%60%
Arrington
Median
2026
6%
9%
2024
3%
9%
2022
1%
9%
2020
1%
9%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
Row
Arrington
Median
2026 cycle
6%
9%
2024 cycle
3%
9%
2022 cycle
1%
9%
2020 cycle
1%
9%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$237$19.8Kno data
+ Show the data
Arrington's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
Virginia
$19.8K
District of Columbia
$6,000
Florida
$5,750
Maryland
$4,500
New York
$3,995
Ohio
$3,500
Illinois
$2,250
California
$2,250
Wisconsin
$2,000
Connecticut
$2,000
Arizona
$2,000
North Carolina
$2,000
Alabama
$2,000
Pennsylvania
$1,500
New Jersey
$1,047
Michigan
$1,000
Colorado
$1,000
Missouri
$1,000
Kansas
$1,000
Louisiana
$1,000
Washington
$500
Iowa
$500
New Mexico
$500
South Carolina
$237
Alaska
No data
Maine
No data
Vermont
No data
New Hampshire
No data
Idaho
No data
Montana
No data
North Dakota
No data
Minnesota
No data
Rhode Island
No data
Massachusetts
No data
Oregon
No data
Nevada
No data
Wyoming
No data
South Dakota
No data
Indiana
No data
Utah
No data
Nebraska
No data
Kentucky
No data
West Virginia
No data
Delaware
No data
Arkansas
No data
Tennessee
No data
Oklahoma
No data
Mississippi
No data
Georgia
No data
Hawaii
No data
Texas
No data
158
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
+ − 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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of Arrington's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 6.4% between +0.25 and +0.50, 12% between +0.50 and +0.75, 34% between +0.75 and +1.00, 41% between +1.00 and +1.25.
Item
Value
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75
0.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50
0.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
0.8%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
3.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
0.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
6.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
12%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
34%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
41%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Arrington’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Arrington’s own score is +1.24.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PRESIDENT$20.5K 12 donors
OWNER$15.2K 7 donors
RETIRED$12.9K 10 donors
HOMEMAKER$12.0K 4 donors
REAL ESTATE$10.5K 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$5,000
AMERICA'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS, INC. PAC (AHIP PAC)$5,000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CROP INSURERS PAC$5,000
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$5,000
AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
FASKEN MANAGEMENT$4,998 3 donors
WINGED KEEL GROUP$4,500 5 donors
OGR$2,500 3 donors
23330 EMERGENCY CENTER$1,819 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Arrington voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 3.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Arrington voted against the majority of House Republicans 24 times.
674 roll calls Arrington could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Republicans. 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 Arrington voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
24
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 99.3%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 33rd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Arrington, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Arrington
House Republicans, average of 221
80%90%100%
Arrington
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.7%
96.3%
160th of 221
Party unity
99.3%
97.1%
33rd of 221
+ Show the data
Arrington's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
Row
Arrington
Peers
Attendance
96.7%
96.3%
Party unity
99.3%
97.1%
+ − 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 119th Congress
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
became law · party crossover
+ − 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 Arrington most often
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.
Arrington sponsored 60 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 102 others. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 122nd of 216).
The bills Arrington sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, 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 119th Congress
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Arrington sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
60
60
4
2
1
Cosponsored
102
102
21
2
2
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Arrington sponsored, ochre blocks bills Arrington cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
12%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 122nd of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Arrington, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Republican
August Pfluger II22
Claudia Tenney17
Carol Miller16
Blake Moore16
Nathaniel Moran16
+ − 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 Arrington’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the "Dionne Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building".
Cosponsor
Sep 3, 2026
In committee
Government Operations and Politics
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 3, 2026
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4450 Oak Park Lane in Fort Worth, Texas, as the "United States Representative Kay Granger Post Office Building".
Cosponsor
Aug 24, 2026
In committee
Government Operations and Politics
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Aug 24, 2026
A site that changed 68 times in 90 days. Arrington’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Arrington posted on Sep 11, 2026.
The lab crawls Arrington’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 Arrington posts with a vision model.
“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.
Four men in suits sit in a formal White House-style room, reading or holding papers. The room has ornate furniture, tall windows, a lamp, and a table with a large arrangement of pink flowers. Some text is visible on papers and identification badges.View post ↗
02
Two men in business suits stand side by side and pose for a photograph in an indoor meeting room. Small flag pins are visible on their lapels. There is some text in the image.View post ↗
03
A dark-themed social media post attributed to Donald J. Trump, with a circular profile picture and a long message about a budget bill, the SAVE America Act, and House Republicans. A date and time appear at the bottom.View post ↗
04
Two men in suits sit on a patterned yellow couch, smiling and giving thumbs-up. Framed photographs and documents hang on the wall behind them, with text visible in some documents.View post ↗
05
A monochrome informational poster about the New World screwworm, with a large illustration of a fly beneath a prominent red heading and smaller text. A USDA mark appears near the bottom.View post ↗
+ − 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.
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 Arrington is most unusual among 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 …”).
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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; 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.
ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
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
