Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 27, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Immigration · Source
16%
of statements claim credit, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans
16% of 1,120 statements claim credit (178 statements); the average for House Republicans is 37%. Ranks 214th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Crenshaw’s Congressional Record speeches, posts on X, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. 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. 45% of Crenshaw’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 68%). 7.8% of Crenshaw’s statements use an extreme label, 2.6 times the House Republican average of 3.0%.
The measures on which Crenshaw 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.
Credit claiming
16%
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 214th of 221
Policy discussion
45%
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 209th of 221
Extreme labels
7.8%
House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 17th of 221
Personal attacks
5.9%
House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 21st of 221
Attendance
90.2%
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 203rd of 221 · 674 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.93
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 Crenshaw, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Crenshaw is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Crenshaw says
Crenshaw attacks opponents personally more than 90% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 5.9% of 1,120 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 21st of 221.
An AI model reads each of Crenshaw’s 1,120 statements in the 119th Congress (1,012 posts on X, 60 newsletters, 34 press releases, 14 Congressional Record speeches) 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%
Crenshaw
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion500 statements
45%
68%
209th of 221
Policy criticism216 statements
19%
15%
51st of 221
Credit claiming178 statements
16%
37%
214th of 221
Personal attacks66 statements
6%
2%
21st of 221
Bipartisanship39 statements
3%
9%
191st of 221
Show the data
| Row | Crenshaw | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 45% | 68% |
| Policy criticism | 19% | 15% |
| Credit claiming | 16% | 37% |
| Personal attacks | 6% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 9% |
1,120
statements classified
1,012 posts on X, 60 newsletters, 34 press releases, 14 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,012 |
| newsletters | 60 |
| press releases | 34 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 14 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Crenshaw; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Crenshaw does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Crenshaw used extreme labels in 7.8% of statements, 2.6 times the peer average. 87 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 3.0%.
- “radical”25
- “MAGA”4
- “communist”4
- “extreme”4
- “woke”4
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Left8
- Democrats3
- gender ideology2
- leftist2
- leftists2
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 | 81 | 1.2% | 30.9% | 54.3% | 7.4% | 18.5% | 6.2% |
| Feb ’25 | 57 | 1.8% | 31.6% | 49.1% | 10.5% | 26.3% | 8.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 88 | 1.1% | 20.4% | 44.3% | 9.1% | 21.6% | 6.8% |
| Apr ’25 | 79 | 3.8% | 10.1% | 48.1% | 2.5% | 30.4% | 6.3% |
| May ’25 | 114 | 2.6% | 21.9% | 46.5% | 2.6% | 17.5% | 4.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 100 | 11.0% | 19.0% | 50.0% | 4.0% | 16.0% | 6.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 97 | 6.2% | 12.4% | 33.0% | 0.0% | 11.3% | 3.1% |
| Aug ’25 | 67 | 1.5% | 23.9% | 44.8% | 3.0% | 7.5% | 11.9% |
| Sep ’25 | 83 | 9.6% | 15.7% | 25.3% | 2.4% | 6.0% | 7.2% |
| Oct ’25 | 81 | 16.1% | 32.1% | 46.9% | 1.2% | 8.6% | 12.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 54 | 7.4% | 27.8% | 44.4% | 1.8% | 9.3% | 13.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 50 | 6.0% | 18.0% | 50.0% | 6.0% | 14.0% | 6.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 52 | 3.9% | 1.9% | 53.8% | 1.9% | 19.2% | 3.9% |
| Feb ’26 | 64 | 4.7% | 7.8% | 46.9% | 0.0% | 23.4% | 17.2% |
| Mar ’26 | 17 | 11.8% | 0.0% | 35.3% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 5.9% |
| Apr ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 10 | 10.0% | 10.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 20.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 18.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (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 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (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%. 5 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.
In Crenshaw’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 18, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Law; target: Thomas Massie · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 24, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “radical” aimed at Establishment Democrats · 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 · Armed Forces and National Security · Law · target: Thomas MassieSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Candace OwensSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “far left” aimed at populist right, far left · target: Tucker CarlsonSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: you guysSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · target: DemocratsSource
All 1,120 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: 1,012 posts on X, 60 newsletters, 34 press releases, 14 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Health is what Crenshaw talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 29th 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 Crenshaw talks about. The bills Crenshaw sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Crenshaw talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Crenshaw
Peers
Health134 statements
27%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security103 statements
21%
24%
Crime and Law Enforcement84 statements
17%
12%
International Affairs75 statements
15%
9%
Government Operations and Politics71 statements
14%
19%
Show the data
| Row | Crenshaw | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 27% | 15% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 24% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 12% |
| International Affairs | 15% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 19% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Crenshaw’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.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 27% | 15% | 26% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 24% | 9% | 8% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 12% | 14% | 9% |
| International Affairs | 15% | 9% | 5% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 19% | 7% | 12% |
0.70
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 29th of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Crenshaw legislates on exactly the areas Crenshaw 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 Crenshaw sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Crenshaw sits at +0.93 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 62% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.92 to +0.95, which understates the uncertainty; from 25,238 donors and 3,616 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
+0.93
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.92 to +0.95. From 25,238 donors and 3,616 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Crenshaw, 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 Crenshaw’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 Crenshaw sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Crenshaw |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 38% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 69% |
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 Crenshaw 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 Crenshaw.
Money
Crenshaw raised $2.8M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 25% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 48% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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.
$2.8M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 974 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)39 squares$1.1M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)13 squares$359.8K
- PACs and other committees22 squares$638.4K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)26 squares$735.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.1M | 38.8% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $359.8K | 12.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $638.4K | 22.5% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $735.2K | 26.0% |
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
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $19.5M |
| 2022 cycle | $15.8M |
| 2024 cycle | $4.1M |
| 2026 cycle | $2.8M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 48% came from Texas.
- Texas$389.1K
- Virginia$66.6K
- New York$57.6K
- California$47.5K
- Florida$38.9K
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%
Crenshaw
Median
2026
25%
9%
2024
44%
9%
2022
56%
9%
2020
55%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Crenshaw | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 25% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 44% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 56% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 55% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Texas | $389.1K |
| Virginia | $66.6K |
| New York | $57.6K |
| California | $47.5K |
| Florida | $38.9K |
| Massachusetts | $32.8K |
| Georgia | $18.8K |
| Pennsylvania | $18.2K |
| Colorado | $16.5K |
| Michigan | $13.4K |
| Arizona | $10.9K |
| Indiana | $10.7K |
| District of Columbia | $10.3K |
| North Carolina | $9,383 |
| Wisconsin | $8,422 |
| Tennessee | $7,847 |
| Wyoming | $7,200 |
| Utah | $6,125 |
| Arkansas | $6,125 |
| Oregon | $5,866 |
| Maryland | $3,915 |
| Alaska | $3,500 |
| Idaho | $3,355 |
| Vermont | $3,150 |
| New Jersey | $3,149 |
| Montana | $3,123 |
| West Virginia | $2,935 |
| Washington | $2,903 |
| Mississippi | $2,126 |
| Minnesota | $2,055 |
| Kansas | $2,025 |
| Ohio | $1,934 |
| Missouri | $1,905 |
| South Carolina | $1,665 |
| Nebraska | $1,050 |
| Kentucky | $1,000 |
| South Dakota | $875 |
| Alabama | $550 |
| Hawaii | $407 |
| Delaware | $350 |
| Oklahoma | $250 |
| New Hampshire | $85 |
| Maine | $50 |
| New Mexico | $45 |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
974
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
48%
from Texas
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 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
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.4% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 1.7% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 1.7% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 2.7% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 4.7% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 5.1% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 12% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 58% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 14% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Crenshaw’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Crenshaw’s own score is +0.93.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$439.7K 497 donors
- EXECUTIVE$79.2K 20 donors
- CEO$59.3K 23 donors
- PRESIDENT$42.9K 11 donors
- CPA$33.0K 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- BULLDOG PAC$10.0K
- DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DIAMONDBACK ENERGY PAC)$10.0K
- MR. SOUTHERN MISSOURIAN IN THE HOUSE PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$9,994
- HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$6,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ARNOLD VENTURES$7,250 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Crenshaw voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.6% of party-line votes and missed 9.8% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Crenshaw voted against the majority of House Republicans 9 times.
674 roll calls Crenshaw 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 Crenshaw voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
9
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 98.6%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 86th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Crenshaw, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Crenshaw
Peers
Rank
Attendance
90.2%
96.3%
203rd of 221
Party unity
98.6%
97.1%
86th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Crenshaw | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90.2% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 98.6% | 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
| 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 | 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 | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | 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 | Yea | With 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 | 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 Crenshaw most often
- Mike JohnsonR481 shared votes100%
- Mark MessmerR595 shared votes99%
- Tom EmmerR599 shared votes99%
- Tony GonzalesR391 shared votes98%
- Matt Van EppsR321 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Crenshaw least often
- Adelita GrijalvaD344 shared votes19%
- Rashida TlaibD593 shared votes22%
- Delia RamirezD586 shared votes23%
- James WalkinshawD379 shared votes23%
- Summer LeeD608 shared votes24%
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
Crenshaw sponsored 24 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 280 others. 4.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 194th of 216).
The bills Crenshaw 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 | 24 | 24 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 280 | 280 | 47 | 9 | 9 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Crenshaw sponsored, ochre blocks bills Crenshaw cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
4.2%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 194th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Crenshaw, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Randy Weber Sr.46
- August Pfluger II35
- Claudia Tenney28
- Craig Goldman26
- Brian Babin24
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 Crenshaw’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. 10434 | Empower Energy Exporting Communities Act | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1511 | Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' families | Cosponsor | Sep 3, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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. Sep 3, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1481 | Honoring the life and legacy of the Honorable Kay Granger, a Representative from the State of Texas. | Cosponsor | Aug 13, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on House Administration. Aug 13, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1436 | Condemning Omar Suleiman for celebrating the death of Senator Lindsey Graham and acknowledging that House Democrats invited him to serve as the Guest Chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2019. | Cosponsor | Jul 15, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on House Administration. Jul 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 9599 | SECURE 340B Act | Cosponsor | Jul 6, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, 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. Jul 6, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 100 times in 90 days. Crenshaw’s official site had 45 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Crenshaw posted on Sep 17, 2026.
The lab crawls Crenshaw’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 Crenshaw posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 45
pages crawled
100changes in 90 days
- 21
pages crawled
37changes 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
- XRepDanCrenshaw
- FacebookRepDanCrenshaw
- Instagramdancrenshawtx
- YouTubeUC2XDiCjAHtJqnSEzrHAY5IQ
Images Crenshaw posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A screenshot of a social media post by Donald J. Trump, with a profile image and a long text post discussing AI, regulation, China, Google, and data centers.View post 
A screenshot of a social media post attributed to Donald J. Trump, with a circular profile image, account name and handle, verification-style badges, and a long political statement about the Senate parliamentarian. The post is displayed on a plain white background.View post 
A VA News article screenshot announcing a clinical trial of MDMA-assisted therapy for mental health disorders. It has a blue VA News banner, a large headline over a dark background image, and several paragraphs of article text below.View post 
A screenshot of a verified social media post from the Iran Embassy in Tajikistan, with a circular blue profile emblem and a large statement below.View post 
The image shows a man holding a rifle walking past a wall covered with numerous posters, each depicting photographs of people and 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.
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 Crenshaw 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
- C001120
- Bioguide
- C001120
- FEC candidate ids
- H8TX02166
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