Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Tennessee’s 2nd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide B001309FEC H8TN02119

Portrait of Tim Burchett, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
41%
of statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans

41% of 638 statements discuss policy (262 statements); the average for House Republicans is 68%. Ranks 212th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Burchett’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 59% of Burchett’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of House Republicans (median 9.4%). The policy areas Burchett talks about and legislates on agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of House Republicans.

The measures on which Burchett 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 discussion

41%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 212th of 221

Small donations, 2026

59%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 7th of 220

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.72

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 15th of 221

Party unity

95.6%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 191st of 221 · 93 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Personal attacks

4.5%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 34th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.29

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Burchett, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Burchett is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Burchett says

Burchett attacks opponents personally more than 84% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 4.5% of 638 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 34th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Burchett’s 638 statements in the 119th Congress (505 posts on X, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 51 press releases, 25 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

0%80%
Burchett
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion262 statements
41%
68%
212th of 221
Credit claiming156 statements
24%
37%
188th of 221
Policy criticism83 statements
13%
15%
132nd of 221
Personal attacks29 statements
5%
2%
34th of 221
Bipartisanship29 statements
5%
9%
163rd of 221
Show the data
Burchett's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowBurchettPeers
Policy discussion41%68%
Credit claiming24%37%
Policy criticism13%15%
Personal attacks5%2%
Bipartisanship5%9%
638

statements classified

505 posts on X, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 51 press releases, 25 newsletters.

posts on X: 505 (79.2%)posts on X 505Congressional Record speeches: 57 (8.9%)press releases: 51 (8.0%)newsletters: 25 (3.9%)
Show the data
Burchett's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X505
Congressional Record speeches57
press releases51
newsletters25
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Burchett; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Burchett does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.

Extreme labels

Burchett used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, below the peer average. 10 statements, most often aimed at Smithsonian; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”4
  2. “far left”2
  3. “woke”2
  4. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Smithsonian2
  2. Democrats1
  3. left1
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

Statements2025-01: 1272025-02: 1262025-03: 542025-04: 292025-05: 172025-06: 382025-07: 132025-08: 132025-09: 192025-10: 92025-11: 252025-12: 112026-01: 142026-02: 202026-03: 202026-04: 102026-05: 102026-06: 132026-07: 272026-08: 152026-09: 202026-10: 8peak 127 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 14.3% · Jan ’26 · latest 5.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 7.9% of 127Personal attacks, 2025-02: 4.0% of 126Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.6% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-05: 11.8% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.6% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-07: 7.7% of 13Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-01: 14.3% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-02: 10.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-03: 5.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.7% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-09: 5.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 30.8% · Jun ’26 · latest 5.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 16.5% of 127Policy criticism, 2025-02: 12.7% of 126Policy criticism, 2025-03: 7.4% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-04: 6.9% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.9% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-06: 18.4% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-07: 0.0% of 13Policy criticism, 2025-08: 7.7% of 13Policy criticism, 2025-09: 10.5% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-11: 16.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-12: 9.1% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.1% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-02: 15.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-03: 25.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-04: 20.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2026-05: 20.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2026-06: 30.8% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-07: 11.1% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-08: 6.7% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 85.0% · Sep ’26 · latest 85.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 23.6% of 127Policy discussion, 2025-02: 23.8% of 126Policy discussion, 2025-03: 25.9% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-04: 44.8% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-05: 58.8% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-06: 52.6% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-07: 38.5% of 13Policy discussion, 2025-08: 46.2% of 13Policy discussion, 2025-09: 36.8% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-11: 56.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-12: 63.6% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-01: 64.3% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-03: 70.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-04: 60.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2026-05: 60.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2026-06: 69.2% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-07: 59.3% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-08: 46.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-09: 85.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 20.0% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 2.4% of 127Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 1.6% of 126Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 1.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.9% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.8% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.5% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 13Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 13Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 9.1% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.3% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 15.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 10.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 20.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 15.4% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 52.9% · May ’25 · latest 35.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 14.2% of 127Credit claiming, 2025-02: 10.3% of 126Credit claiming, 2025-03: 14.8% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-04: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-05: 52.9% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-06: 39.5% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-07: 23.1% of 13Credit claiming, 2025-08: 23.1% of 13Credit claiming, 2025-09: 31.6% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-11: 36.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-12: 45.5% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-01: 28.6% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-02: 45.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-03: 50.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-04: 20.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2026-05: 40.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2026-06: 46.2% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-07: 22.2% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-08: 20.0% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-09: 35.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 10.5% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.4% of 127Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.8% of 126Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.8% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.5% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2025-09: 10.5% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-07: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-08: 6.7% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Burchett, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
ColumnStatementsPersonal attacksPolicy criticismPolicy discussionBipartisanshipCredit claimingExtreme labels
Jan ’251277.9%16.5%23.6%2.4%14.2%2.4%
Feb ’251264.0%12.7%23.8%1.6%10.3%0.8%
Mar ’25545.6%7.4%25.9%1.8%14.8%1.8%
Apr ’25290.0%6.9%44.8%6.9%34.5%3.5%
May ’251711.8%5.9%58.8%11.8%52.9%0.0%
Jun ’25382.6%18.4%52.6%10.5%39.5%0.0%
Jul ’25137.7%0.0%38.5%0.0%23.1%0.0%
Aug ’25130.0%7.7%46.2%0.0%23.1%0.0%
Sep ’25190.0%10.5%36.8%5.3%31.6%10.5%
Oct ’259— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Nov ’25250.0%16.0%56.0%0.0%36.0%0.0%
Dec ’25110.0%9.1%63.6%9.1%45.5%0.0%
Jan ’261414.3%7.1%64.3%14.3%28.6%0.0%
Feb ’262010.0%15.0%60.0%10.0%45.0%0.0%
Mar ’26205.0%25.0%70.0%15.0%50.0%0.0%
Apr ’26100.0%20.0%60.0%10.0%20.0%0.0%
May ’26100.0%20.0%60.0%20.0%40.0%0.0%
Jun ’26130.0%30.8%69.2%15.4%46.2%0.0%
Jul ’26273.7%11.1%59.3%3.7%22.2%3.7%
Aug ’26150.0%6.7%46.7%0.0%20.0%6.7%
Sep ’26205.0%5.0%85.0%0.0%35.0%0.0%
Oct ’268— (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 Burchett’s words

Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned

Bipartisanship

June Newsletter: Update from Rep. Burchett [Rep. Tim Burchett banner] June Update from DC: H.R. 8107 Passes the House: On June 8th, the Government Audit and Accountability of Federally Funded State-Administered Programs Act, passed the US House of Representatives. The bill establishes a program t…

Jul 6, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Health; Immigration

Personal attacks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DOGE Hearing Achieves Results Washington, D.C. (09/18/2026): As a result of the DOGE hearing, “Fixing Fraud and Failure in Federally Funded Homelessness Services,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has resigned from the Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority (LAHSA) Commission, and…

Sep 18, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; target: Karen Bass · Source

Extreme label

July Newsletter - Update from Rep. Burchett [Rep. Tim Burchett banner] July Update from Washington Introduction of the Stop Retail Food Store SNAP Trafficking Act: On July 12th, I introduced the “Stop Retail Food Store SNAP Trafficking Act” to combat the growing incidents of abuse within the Supp…

Aug 3, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Armed Forces and National Security; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Environmental Protection; Crime and Law Enforcement; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Science, Technology, Communications; extreme label “radical, woke” aimed at Smithsonian

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Press releases

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DOGE Hearing Achieves Results Washington, D.C. (09/18/2026): As a result of the DOGE hearing, “Fixing Fraud and Failure in Federally Funded Homelessness Services,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has resigned from the Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority (LAHSA) Commission, and the Department of Justice has charged multiple individuals associated with organizations that contracted with LAHSA. Th…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · target: Karen BassSource

  2. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: HartigSource

  3. Press releases

    Congressman Burchett Issues Request to the Navy to Change the Name of the USNS Cesar Chávez Image For Immediate Release: Washington, D.C. (03/19/2026) -- Today, Congressman Burchett sent a letter to the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, requesting that the name of the USNS Cesar Chavez be changed. This request was made due to the recent news coming out about Chavez’s alleged sexual abuse. “Due to recent revelations that…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Cesar ChavezSource

  4. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: DemocratsSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, the SAVE America Act will block illegal immigrants and noncitizens from voting. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there being spread by the media and my friends across the aisle. House Republicans and President Trump want to protect the ballot box and ensure integrity in our elections across this great country. Only US citizens should participate in the election process. The laws we cre…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesSource

All 638 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: 505 posts on X, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 51 press releases, 25 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Burchett talks about most: 32% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 15th 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 Burchett talks about. The bills Burchett sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Burchett talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Burchett
Peers
Government Operations and Politics82 statements
32%
19%
Economics and Public Finance60 statements
23%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security56 statements
22%
24%
International Affairs37 statements
14%
9%
Crime and Law Enforcement34 statements
13%
12%
Show the data
Policy areas Burchett talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowBurchettPeers
Government Operations and Politics32%19%
Economics and Public Finance23%19%
Armed Forces and National Security22%24%
International Affairs14%9%
Crime and Law Enforcement13%12%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Burchett’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 32% (House Republicans 19%)32%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 17% (House Republicans 12%)17%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 19%)23%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 24%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 8%)8%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 9%)14%International Affairs, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 6%)9%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 13% (House Republicans 12%)13%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 9%)12%
Show the data
Burchett's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics32%19%17%12%
Economics and Public Finance23%19%1%2%
Armed Forces and National Security22%24%8%8%
International Affairs14%9%9%6%
Crime and Law Enforcement13%12%12%9%
0.72

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 15th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Burchett legislates on exactly the areas Burchett 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 Burchett sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Burchett sits at +1.29 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 84% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.27 to +1.30, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,509 donors and 3,790 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”.

+1.29

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.27 to +1.30. From 3,509 donors and 3,790 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Burchett +1.3House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Burchett, 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 Burchett’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 Burchett sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Burchett +1.3All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Burchett's CSIP score of +1.29 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Burchett
House Republicans221+1.084%
All House439+0.392%
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 Burchett 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 Burchett.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Burchett raised $3.1M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 59% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 66% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.

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.

Election cycle
$3.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,711 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): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (37.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.7M (53.2%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)PACs and other committees: $260.3K (8.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $43.7K (1.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $43.7K (1.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)37 squares$1.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)53 squares$1.7M
  • PACs and other committees8 squares$260.3K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$43.7K
Show the data
Sources of Burchett's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.2M37.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.7M53.2%
PACs and other committees$260.3K8.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$43.7K1.4%
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. 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.

2020 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M20202022 cycle: $1.4M$1.4M20222024 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20242026 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Burchett's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.3M
2022 cycle$1.4M
2024 cycle$1.2M
2026 cycle$3.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 66% came from Tennessee.

  1. Tennessee$572.2K
  2. Florida$44.3K
  3. Texas$44.0K
  4. California$16.2K
  5. Georgia$14.7K

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.

0%60%
Burchett
Median
2026
59%
9%
2024
27%
9%
2022
25%
9%
2020
32%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowBurchettMedian
2026 cycle59%9%
2024 cycle27%9%
2022 cycle25%9%
2020 cycle32%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $614AKMaine: $364MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $265NHWashington: $8,747WAIdaho: $914IDMontana: $2,441MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $3,194MNIllinois: $8,318ILWisconsin: $1,690WIMichigan: $5,100MINew York: $13.8KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $3,981MAOregon: $1,968ORNevada: $4,874NVWyoming: $156WYSouth Dakota: $750SDIowa: $864IAIndiana: $2,624INOhio: $6,651OHPennsylvania: $6,270PANew Jersey: $11.2KNJConnecticut: $14.6KCTCalifornia: $16.2KCAUtah: $2,250UTColorado: $4,171CONebraska: $1,562NEMissouri: $3,143MOKentucky: $7,288KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $10.8KVAMaryland: $7,885MDDelaware: $208DEArizona: $10.1KAZNew Mexico: $1,071NMKansas: $1,650KSArkansas: $904ARTennessee: $572.2KTNNorth Carolina: $5,165NCSouth Carolina: $4,975SCDistrict of Columbia: $500DCOklahoma: $4,863OKLouisiana: $2,148LAMississippi: $1,701MSAlabama: $5,379ALGeorgia: $14.7KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $44.0KTXFlorida: $44.3KFL
Show the data
Burchett's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Tennessee$572.2K
Florida$44.3K
Texas$44.0K
California$16.2K
Georgia$14.7K
Connecticut$14.6K
New York$13.8K
New Jersey$11.2K
Virginia$10.8K
Arizona$10.1K
Washington$8,747
Illinois$8,318
Maryland$7,885
Kentucky$7,288
Ohio$6,651
Pennsylvania$6,270
Alabama$5,379
North Carolina$5,165
Michigan$5,100
South Carolina$4,975
Nevada$4,874
Oklahoma$4,863
Colorado$4,171
Massachusetts$3,981
Minnesota$3,194
Missouri$3,143
Indiana$2,624
Montana$2,441
Utah$2,250
Louisiana$2,148
Oregon$1,968
Mississippi$1,701
Wisconsin$1,690
Kansas$1,650
Nebraska$1,562
New Mexico$1,071
Idaho$914
Arkansas$904
Iowa$864
South Dakota$750
Alaska$614
District of Columbia$500
Maine$364
New Hampshire$265
Delaware$208
Wyoming$156
VermontNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
West VirginiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
1,711

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

66%

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.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 3.1%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 12%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 24%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 59%59%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Burchett's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 12% between +0.75 and +1.00, 24% between +1.00 and +1.25, 59% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.753.1%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0012%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2524%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5059%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Burchett’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Burchett’s own score is +1.29.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$416.7K 1,021 donors
  2. OWNER$30.8K 38 donors
  3. CEO$26.5K 28 donors
  4. PHYSICIAN$15.6K 16 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$15.0K 13 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. SENATE EAGLE PAC$10.0K
  2. NETJETS ASSOCIATION OF SHARED AIRCRAFT PILOTS PAC; NJASAP PAC$5,500
  3. SMART TD PAC$5,500
  4. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$5,000
  5. AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION-POLITICAL ACTION CMTE (ASLRRA-PAC)$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. STATE OF TENNESSEE$2,929 7 donors
  2. ME$1,374 4 donors
  3. MYSELF$1,364 3 donors
  4. USAF$662 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Burchett voted with the majority of House Republicans on 95.6% of party-line votes and missed 2.8% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Burchett voted against the majority of House Republicans 93 times.

674 roll calls Burchett 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 Burchett voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

93

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 95.6%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 191st of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Burchett, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Burchett
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.1%
96.3%
146th of 221
Party unity
95.6%
97.1%
191st of 221
Show the data
Burchett's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowBurchettPeers
Attendance97.1%96.3%
Party unity95.6%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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
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
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
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
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame 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 Burchett most often

  1. Marjorie Taylor GreeneR311 shared votes94%
  2. Eli CraneR640 shared votes94%
  3. Andrew Ogles IVR601 shared votes94%
  4. Anna LunaR584 shared votes94%
  5. Lauren BoebertR625 shared votes94%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Burchett least often

  1. Frederica WilsonD467 shared votes18%
  2. Delia RamirezD622 shared votes18%
  3. Rashida TlaibD642 shared votes19%
  4. Nancy PelosiD593 shared votes19%
  5. Adelita GrijalvaD385 shared votes19%
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

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Burchett sponsored 66 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 209 others. 6.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 183rd of 216).

The bills Burchett 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

Sponsored66 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6666Sponsored, In committee: 6666Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored209 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 209209Cosponsored, In committee: 209209Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2323Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Burchett sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6666400
Cosponsored2092092322
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Burchett sponsored, ochre blocks bills Burchett cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

6.1%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 183rd of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Burchett, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Anna Luna26
  2. Lauren Boebert23
  3. Paul Gosar23
  4. Nancy Mace20
  5. Brandon Gill18
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 Burchett’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10842To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish the financial services customer support onshoring credit.SponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10535Paperwork Reduction Modernization Act of 2026SponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10556VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10478Aid and Attendance Assistance for Veterans ActCosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 17, 2026
H.R. 10487Recovery First Housing ActSponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeHousing and Community DevelopmentReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Sep 17, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 46 times in 90 days. Burchett’s official site had 29 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Burchett posted on Oct 20, 2026.

The lab crawls Burchett’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 Burchett posts with a vision model.

Websites

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.

Images Burchett posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A woman and a man stand in a formal office, smiling as they hold a small object together. Behind them is a large framed American flag above a leather sofa. A wooden table in the foreground holds books and other items. There is some text visible on clothing and book covers.
    A woman and a man stand in a formal office, smiling as they hold a small object together. Behind them is a large framed American flag above a leather sofa. A wooden table in the foreground holds books and other items. There is some text visible on clothing and book covers.View post
  • A man in a suit speaks from a podium to an audience seated in an auditorium. Flags, a stage with curtains, wood-paneled walls, a large screen, and a speaker are visible. Some clothing has text.
    A man in a suit speaks from a podium to an audience seated in an auditorium. Flags, a stage with curtains, wood-paneled walls, a large screen, and a speaker are visible. Some clothing has text.View post
  • An outdoor historical or commemorative gathering under a wooden pavilion. Attendees sit at picnic tables, several wearing colonial-style clothing and hats, while two men speak at a lectern beside flags, a speaker, and a wreath. There is a small amount of text on clothing.
    An outdoor historical or commemorative gathering under a wooden pavilion. Attendees sit at picnic tables, several wearing colonial-style clothing and hats, while two men speak at a lectern beside flags, a speaker, and a wreath. There is a small amount of text on clothing.View post
  • Two men in suits pose beneath a wooden pavilion, holding a framed certificate. Several flags stand behind them, with trees visible outside. The certificate contains text.
    Two men in suits pose beneath a wooden pavilion, holding a framed certificate. Several flags stand behind them, with trees visible outside. The certificate contains text.View post
  • An outdoor gathering on a lawn beside a wooden building, with guests seated at round tables and others standing near a railing. A man in a dark suit appears to be addressing the group. Trees and rolling hills are visible beneath a clear blue sky. No visible text.
    An outdoor gathering on a lawn beside a wooden building, with guests seated at round tables and others standing near a railing. A man in a dark suit appears to be addressing the group. Trees and rolling hills are visible beneath a clear blue sky. No visible text.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.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Burchett 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 …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
B001309
Bioguide
B001309
FEC candidate ids
H8TN02119

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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • 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

Back to top