Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 29, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; target: Trump · Source
95%
of itemized money from California donors, in the top 5% of House Democrats
95% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in California. Ranks 2nd of 214, where 1st is the highest share. 361 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in California, ranked among House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. Chu sits at −1.34 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 92% of House Democrats. 35% of Chu’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 28%).
The measures on which Chu sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From California, 2026
95%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2nd of 214 House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−1.34
More liberal than 92% of House Democrats · ± 0.02
Party unity
99.5%
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 36th of 217 · 11 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Attendance
99.7%
House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 32nd of 217 · 674 roll calls
Policy criticism
35%
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 44th of 216
Small donations, 2026
5.5%
House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 170th of 214
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Chu, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Chu is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Chu says
Chu criticizes policies more than 79% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 35% of 1,866 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 44th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Chu’s 1,866 statements in the 119th Congress (1,537 posts on X, 207 press releases, 90 Congressional Record speeches, 32 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Chu
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,423 statements
76%
73%
82nd of 216
Policy criticism660 statements
35%
28%
44th of 216
Credit claiming431 statements
23%
23%
96th of 216
Bipartisanship218 statements
12%
10%
55th of 216
Personal attacks99 statements
5%
7%
114th of 216
Show the data
| Row | Chu | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 76% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 35% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 23% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 12% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 5% | 7% |
1,866
statements classified
1,537 posts on X, 207 press releases, 90 Congressional Record speeches, 32 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,537 |
| press releases | 207 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 90 |
| newsletters | 32 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Chu; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Chu does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Chu used extreme labels in 2.5% of statements, above the peer average. 47 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.
- “extreme”22
- “MAGA”3
- “far right”3
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Republicans8
- Trump5
- abortion bans4
- abortion ban2
- extremists2
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
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 104 | 4.8% | 27.9% | 74.0% | 25.0% | 32.7% | 2.9% |
| Feb ’25 | 98 | 8.2% | 33.7% | 71.4% | 17.3% | 31.6% | 4.1% |
| Mar ’25 | 102 | 10.8% | 33.3% | 74.5% | 13.7% | 26.5% | 1.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 85 | 7.1% | 37.6% | 80.0% | 15.3% | 20.0% | 7.1% |
| May ’25 | 75 | 2.7% | 45.3% | 73.3% | 13.3% | 17.3% | 4.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 93 | 9.7% | 36.6% | 71.0% | 6.5% | 19.4% | 5.4% |
| Jul ’25 | 79 | 1.3% | 40.5% | 83.5% | 10.1% | 22.8% | 1.3% |
| Aug ’25 | 75 | 2.7% | 50.7% | 73.3% | 6.7% | 29.3% | 1.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 105 | 2.9% | 52.4% | 79.0% | 15.2% | 29.5% | 0.9% |
| Oct ’25 | 91 | 3.3% | 49.5% | 73.6% | 8.8% | 15.4% | 1.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 69 | 7.2% | 36.2% | 66.7% | 11.6% | 29.0% | 4.3% |
| Dec ’25 | 77 | 3.9% | 28.6% | 85.7% | 14.3% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 117 | 9.4% | 24.8% | 80.3% | 7.7% | 22.2% | 4.3% |
| Feb ’26 | 89 | 4.5% | 41.6% | 68.5% | 10.1% | 28.1% | 3.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 50 | 0.0% | 54.0% | 78.0% | 4.0% | 20.0% | 4.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 76 | 11.8% | 25.0% | 84.2% | 13.2% | 27.6% | 1.3% |
| May ’26 | 77 | 5.2% | 24.7% | 76.6% | 9.1% | 28.6% | 3.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 78 | 7.7% | 42.3% | 70.5% | 6.4% | 17.9% | 3.9% |
| Jul ’26 | 87 | 1.1% | 31.0% | 71.3% | 9.2% | 9.2% | 1.1% |
| Aug ’26 | 67 | 4.5% | 25.4% | 83.6% | 6.0% | 13.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 107 | 2.8% | 26.2% | 81.3% | 19.6% | 14.9% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 65 | 0.0% | 16.9% | 78.5% | 1.5% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
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%.
In Chu’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration; Health; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 2, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Republicans · 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 · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource
Press releases
Rep. Chu Votes Against H.R. 5334 Over Expanded Presidential Tariff Powers WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28) voted against H.R. 5334, the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026. Rep. Chu released the following statement: "I strongly support Ukraine and its fight for freedom and democracy. And I believe we should impose tough, meaningful sanctions on Vladimir Putin and those financing h…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Foreign Trade and International Finance · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · Energy · Health · Taxation · target: TrumpSource
All 1,866 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: 1,537 posts on X, 207 press releases, 90 Congressional Record speeches, 32 newsletters.
Policy
Health is what Chu talks about most: 31% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 87th of 216).
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 Chu talks about. The bills Chu sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Chu talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Chu
Peers
Health438 statements
31%
26%
Economics and Public Finance285 statements
20%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues244 statements
17%
13%
Emergency Management230 statements
16%
5%
Government Operations and Politics191 statements
13%
20%
Show the data
| Row | Chu | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 31% | 26% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 20% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 13% |
| Emergency Management | 16% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 20% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Chu’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. 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 Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 31% | 26% | 15% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 20% | 1% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 13% | 5% | 5% |
| Emergency Management | 16% | 5% | 1% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 20% | 9% | 11% |
0.69
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 87th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Chu legislates on exactly the areas Chu 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 Chu sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Chu sits at −1.34 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 92% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.36 to −1.32, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,373 donors and 7,414 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”.
−1.34
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.36 to −1.32. From 2,373 donors and 7,414 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Chu, 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 Chu’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 Chu sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Chu |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 8% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 4% |
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 Chu 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 Chu.
Money
Chu raised $1.4M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 5.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 95% of itemized individual money came from California.
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.
$1.4M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 361 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)60 squares$818.5K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$47.2K
- PACs and other committees37 squares$510.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $818.5K | 59.5% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $47.2K | 3.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $510.2K | 37.1% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.6M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.9M |
| 2026 cycle | $1.4M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 95% came from California.
- California$461.7K
- District of Columbia$7,250
- Texas$4,500
- Virginia$3,500
- Nevada$3,500
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Chu
Median
2026
5%
13%
2024
5%
13%
2022
7%
13%
2020
7%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Chu | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 5% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 5% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 7% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 7% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $461.7K |
| District of Columbia | $7,250 |
| Texas | $4,500 |
| Nevada | $3,500 |
| Virginia | $3,500 |
| Kansas | $3,500 |
| Massachusetts | $1,500 |
| Maryland | $1,000 |
| New York | $350 |
| Louisiana | $350 |
| Washington | $250 |
| Oregon | $250 |
| Hawaii | $250 |
| 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 |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Florida | No data |
361
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
95%
from California
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 California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 53% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 31% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 7.3% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 1.0% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 2.0% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 4.9% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.4% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Chu’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Chu’s own score is −1.34.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$57.5K 59 donors
- CEO$53.4K 33 donors
- PRESIDENT$41.8K 23 donors
- OWNER$27.1K 15 donors
- PHYSICIAN$22.3K 11 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
- INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Chu voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.3% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Chu voted against the majority of House Democrats 11 times.
674 roll calls Chu could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Chu voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
11
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 99.5%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 36th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Chu, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Chu
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
96.9%
32nd of 217
Party unity
99.5%
96.4%
36th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Chu | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.7% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 99.5% | 96.4% |
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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | 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 | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Nay | 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 Chu most often
- Jill TokudaD670 shared votes99%
- Nanette BarragánD650 shared votes99%
- Jan SchakowskyD627 shared votes99%
- Dwight EvansD624 shared votes99%
- Alma AdamsD671 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Chu least often
- Chip RoyR633 shared votes16%
- Ralph NormanR597 shared votes17%
- Eric BurlisonR642 shared votes17%
- Andy BiggsR607 shared votes18%
- Keith SelfR658 shared votes18%
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
Legislation
Chu sponsored 44 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 722 others. 4.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 85th of 207).
The bills Chu 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 44 | 44 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 722 | 722 | 14 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Chu sponsored, ochre blocks bills Chu cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
4.5%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 85th of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Chu, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Eleanor Norton130
- Rashida Tlaib69
- Lateefah Simon51
- André Carson47
- Hank Johnson Jr.46
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 Chu’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10875 | To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1627 | Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to preserve and expand pathways to citizenship. | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026 |
| H.Con.Res. 123 | Recognizing the disparity in wages paid to Latinas and the impact of that disparity on women, families, the economy, and the United States. | Cosponsor | Oct 6, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment | Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 6, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1608 | Expressing support for the designation of October 5, 2026, as the "National Beyond the Milky Way Day" and celebrating a transformative achievement in American science. | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Science, Technology, Communications | Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Oct 5, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1610 | Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "World Menopause Awareness Month" and for global awareness and access to care during menopausal transition and post-menopause. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 5, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 49 times in 90 days. Chu’s official site had 30 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Chu posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Chu’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 Chu posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 30
pages crawled
49changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
8changes 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
- XRepJudyChu
- FacebookRepJudyChu
- Instagramrepjudychu
- YouTubeRepJudyChu
- Emailca28jcima-113@mail.house.gov
Images Chu posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A promotional graphic for a student app competition. A large smartphone displays a messaging screen with notices about the competition and its deadline, while colorful hands hold the phone. Text is prominent throughout.View post 
A woman speaks at a podium during a presentation in a meeting room, with an audience seated in front of her. A large projected slide and a monitor display text and logos. Windows behind the presenter show trees and an outdoor area.View post 
A woman speaks into a microphone from behind a lectern at an indoor event. A large display in front shows a university alumni logo, and a small plaque is mounted on the wall. There is also text on a projection screen and plaque.View post 
A political campaign-style graphic overlays a grayscale photo of gas pump buttons. Large red and white lettering makes a claim about increased gas spending in California’s 28th district; a small campaign logo appears at the top.View post 
A Human Rights Campaign graphic celebrating a perfect score on a congressional scorecard. It features a large number, text, the U.S. Capitol building, an American flag, and the organization's logo.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.
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 Chu is most unusual among House Democrats, 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
- C001080
- Bioguide
- C001080
- FEC candidate ids
- H0CA32101
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