Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Texas’s 15th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide D000594FEC H0TX15124

Portrait of Mónica De La Cruz, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.1%
of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

0.1% of 1,437 statements contain a personal attack (1 statement); the average for House Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 209th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Cruz’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. 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. 0.4% of Cruz’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 3.0%). Cruz raised $6.8M in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of House Republicans (median $2.2M).

The measures on which Cruz 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.

Personal attacks

0.1%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 209th of 221

Extreme labels

0.4%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 198th of 221

Raised, 2026

$6.8M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 22nd of 220

Policy criticism

8.2%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 192nd of 221

Credit claiming

48%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 37th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.08

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cruz says

Cruz attacks opponents personally less than 94% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 1,437 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 209th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Cruz’s 1,437 statements in the 119th Congress (1,160 posts on X, 131 press releases, 87 Congressional Record speeches, 59 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%
Cruz
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion958 statements
67%
68%
135th of 221
Credit claiming690 statements
48%
37%
37th of 221
Bipartisanship156 statements
11%
9%
64th of 221
Policy criticism118 statements
8%
15%
192nd of 221
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
209th of 221
Show the data
Cruz's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowCruzPeers
Policy discussion67%68%
Credit claiming48%37%
Bipartisanship11%9%
Policy criticism8%15%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,437

statements classified

1,160 posts on X, 131 press releases, 87 Congressional Record speeches, 59 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,160 (80.7%)posts on X 1,160press releases: 131 (9.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 87 (6.1%)newsletters: 59 (4.1%)
Show the data
Cruz's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,160
press releases131
Congressional Record speeches87
newsletters59
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cruz used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 14% of the peer average. 6 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”2
  2. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats1
  2. radical left1
  3. Schumer Shutdown1
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: 832025-02: 962025-03: 1072025-04: 962025-05: 922025-06: 812025-07: 882025-08: 502025-09: 1022025-10: 422025-11: 372025-12: 452026-01: 512026-02: 732026-03: 742026-04: 492026-05: 652026-06: 472026-07: 422026-08: 272026-09: 622026-10: 28peak 107 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 3.7% · Aug ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 92Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 102Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-08: 3.7% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 28Policy criticismpeak 35.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 12.0% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-02: 14.6% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-03: 5.6% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-04: 3.1% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-05: 3.3% of 92Policy criticism, 2025-06: 2.5% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-07: 2.3% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-08: 2.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-09: 7.8% of 102Policy criticism, 2025-10: 35.7% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-11: 16.2% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-12: 11.1% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-01: 2.0% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-02: 8.2% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-03: 24.3% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-04: 8.2% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-05: 3.1% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-06: 12.8% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-07: 4.8% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-08: 7.4% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-09: 3.2% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 28Policy discussionpeak 82.2% · Dec ’25 · latest 78.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 60.2% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-02: 70.8% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-03: 57.0% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-04: 77.1% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-05: 73.9% of 92Policy discussion, 2025-06: 65.4% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-07: 59.1% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-08: 46.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-09: 60.8% of 102Policy discussion, 2025-10: 71.4% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-11: 70.3% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-12: 82.2% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-01: 76.5% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.3% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-03: 66.2% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-04: 61.2% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-05: 64.6% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-06: 76.6% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.2% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-08: 74.1% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-09: 64.5% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-10: 78.6% of 28Bipartisanshippeak 19.2% · Feb ’26 · latest 7.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 9.6% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 16.7% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 12.2% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.3% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.5% of 92Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.7% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.0% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 2.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.8% of 102Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 14.3% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 16.2% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 17.8% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 15.7% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 19.2% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.1% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 12.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 7.7% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.5% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 7.1% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 14.8% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 17.7% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 7.1% of 28Credit claimingpeak 77.8% · Dec ’25 · latest 50.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 43.4% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-02: 43.8% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-03: 43.9% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-04: 50.0% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-05: 53.3% of 92Credit claiming, 2025-06: 54.3% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-07: 42.0% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-08: 32.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-09: 40.2% of 102Credit claiming, 2025-10: 38.1% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-11: 40.5% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-12: 77.8% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-01: 43.1% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-02: 57.5% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-03: 48.6% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-04: 42.9% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-05: 47.7% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-06: 72.3% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-07: 50.0% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-08: 40.7% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-09: 51.6% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-10: 50.0% of 28Extreme labelspeak 2.4% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.9% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 92Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.0% of 102Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.4% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 28Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cruz, 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 ’25830.0%12.0%60.2%9.6%43.4%1.2%
Feb ’25960.0%14.6%70.8%16.7%43.8%0.0%
Mar ’251070.0%5.6%57.0%12.2%43.9%1.9%
Apr ’25960.0%3.1%77.1%6.3%50.0%0.0%
May ’25920.0%3.3%73.9%6.5%53.3%0.0%
Jun ’25810.0%2.5%65.4%3.7%54.3%0.0%
Jul ’25880.0%2.3%59.1%8.0%42.0%0.0%
Aug ’25500.0%2.0%46.0%2.0%32.0%0.0%
Sep ’251020.0%7.8%60.8%12.8%40.2%2.0%
Oct ’25420.0%35.7%71.4%14.3%38.1%2.4%
Nov ’25370.0%16.2%70.3%16.2%40.5%0.0%
Dec ’25450.0%11.1%82.2%17.8%77.8%0.0%
Jan ’26510.0%2.0%76.5%15.7%43.1%0.0%
Feb ’26730.0%8.2%60.3%19.2%57.5%0.0%
Mar ’26740.0%24.3%66.2%8.1%48.6%0.0%
Apr ’26490.0%8.2%61.2%12.2%42.9%0.0%
May ’26650.0%3.1%64.6%7.7%47.7%0.0%
Jun ’26470.0%12.8%76.6%8.5%72.3%0.0%
Jul ’26420.0%4.8%76.2%7.1%50.0%0.0%
Aug ’26273.7%7.4%74.1%14.8%40.7%0.0%
Sep ’26620.0%3.2%64.5%17.7%51.6%0.0%
Oct ’26280.0%0.0%78.6%7.1%50.0%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 Cruz’s words

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

Policy criticism

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of HR 8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, or the FUTURES Act. This bipartisan, commonsense measure addresses a real challenge. As technology evol…

Sep 14, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Finance and Financial Sector; Government Operations and Politics; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Personal attacks

TX-15 Update: Hidalgo Congressional Record Ceremony! ? ALERT: According to House Communications rules, you must be subscribed to receive my e-newsletter starting September 2026. Click here to make sure you are on the list to receive my updates! [Representative Monica De La Cruz]<https://delacruz.ho…

Aug 18, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Immigration; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Health; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; target: Anthony Fauci

Extreme label

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

Oct 23, 2025 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at radical left · Source

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. Newsletters

    TX-15 Update: Hidalgo Congressional Record Ceremony! ? ALERT: According to House Communications rules, you must be subscribed to receive my e-newsletter starting September 2026. Click here to make sure you are on the list to receive my updates! [Representative Monica De La Cruz]<https://delacruz.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=4637-530059> [facebook icon]<https://delacruz.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Education · Immigration · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Health · Housing and Community Development · Labor and Employment · target: Anthony Fauci

All 1,437 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: 1,160 posts on X, 131 press releases, 87 Congressional Record speeches, 59 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Agriculture and Food is what Cruz talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 2.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 160th 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 Cruz talks about. The bills Cruz sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cruz talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Cruz
Peers
Agriculture and Food248 statements
26%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security183 statements
19%
24%
Water Resources Development149 statements
16%
3%
Housing and Community Development142 statements
15%
4%
Economics and Public Finance120 statements
13%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Cruz talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowCruzPeers
Agriculture and Food26%9%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%
Water Resources Development16%3%
Housing and Community Development15%4%
Economics and Public Finance13%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Cruz’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 onAgriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 9%)26%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 3%)12%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 24%)19%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 8%)8%Water Resources DevelopmentWater Resources Development, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 3%)16%Water Resources Development, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 0%)0%Housing and CommunityDevelopmentHousing and Community Development, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 4%)15%Housing and Community Development, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 1%)10%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 13% (House Republicans 19%)13%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%
Show the data
Cruz's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Agriculture and Food26%9%12%3%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%8%8%
Water Resources Development16%3%0%0%
Housing and Community Development15%4%10%1%
Economics and Public Finance13%19%0%2%
0.62

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 160th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cruz sits at +1.08 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 63% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.07 to +1.10, which understates the uncertainty; from 9,001 donors and 1,815 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”.

+1.08

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.07 to +1.10. From 9,001 donors and 1,815 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cruz +1.1House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Cruz, 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 Cruz’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 Cruz sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Cruz +1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Cruz's CSIP score of +1.08 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cruz
House Republicans221+1.062%
All House439+0.381%
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 Cruz 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 Cruz.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cruz raised $6.8M in the 2026 cycle, 3.2 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 38% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 41% 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.

Election cycle
$6.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 3,569 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): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (37.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (16.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.5M (22.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)38 squares$2.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)23 squares$1.6M
  • PACs and other committees17 squares$1.1M
  • The candidate’s own money and loans$84
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)22 squares$1.5M
Show the data
Sources of Cruz's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.5M37.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.6M23.4%
PACs and other committees$1.1M16.9%
The candidate’s own money and loans$840.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.5M22.4%
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: $422.6K$422.6K20202022 cycle: $4.6M$4.6M20222024 cycle: $7.9M$7.9M20242026 cycle: $6.8M$6.8M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Cruz's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$422.6K
2022 cycle$4.6M
2024 cycle$7.9M
2026 cycle$6.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 41% came from Texas.

  1. Texas$889.7K
  2. Florida$178.6K
  3. California$177.0K
  4. New York$61.2K
  5. Virginia$50.9K

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%
Cruz
Median
2026
38%
9%
2024
51%
9%
2022
38%
9%
2020
15%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowCruzMedian
2026 cycle38%9%
2024 cycle51%9%
2022 cycle38%9%
2020 cycle15%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $2,694AKMaine: $7,568MEVermont: $617VTNew Hampshire: $1,143NHWashington: $21.2KWAIdaho: $24.0KIDMontana: $2,509MTNorth Dakota: $508NDMinnesota: $32.6KMNIllinois: $39.5KILWisconsin: $12.0KWIMichigan: $26.2KMINew York: $61.2KNYRhode Island: $241RIMassachusetts: $48.3KMAOregon: $16.5KORNevada: $8,529NVWyoming: $6,890WYSouth Dakota: $2,572SDIowa: $7,847IAIndiana: $19.0KINOhio: $42.0KOHPennsylvania: $40.0KPANew Jersey: $25.9KNJConnecticut: $6,526CTCalifornia: $177.0KCAUtah: $6,695UTColorado: $27.6KCONebraska: $5,113NEMissouri: $31.3KMOKentucky: $4,635KYWest Virginia: $3,486WVVirginia: $50.9KVAMaryland: $11.1KMDDelaware: $893DEArizona: $42.9KAZNew Mexico: $15.9KNMKansas: $17.8KKSArkansas: $10.3KARTennessee: $25.0KTNNorth Carolina: $22.4KNCSouth Carolina: $29.7KSCDistrict of Columbia: $11.1KDCOklahoma: $20.8KOKLouisiana: $20.3KLAMississippi: $8,362MSAlabama: $34.4KALGeorgia: $35.9KGAHawaii: $5,004HITexas: $889.7KTXFlorida: $178.6KFL
Show the data
Cruz's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Texas$889.7K
Florida$178.6K
California$177.0K
New York$61.2K
Virginia$50.9K
Massachusetts$48.3K
Arizona$42.9K
Ohio$42.0K
Pennsylvania$40.0K
Illinois$39.5K
Georgia$35.9K
Alabama$34.4K
Minnesota$32.6K
Missouri$31.3K
South Carolina$29.7K
Colorado$27.6K
Michigan$26.2K
New Jersey$25.9K
Tennessee$25.0K
Idaho$24.0K
North Carolina$22.4K
Washington$21.2K
Oklahoma$20.8K
Louisiana$20.3K
Indiana$19.0K
Kansas$17.8K
Oregon$16.5K
New Mexico$15.9K
Wisconsin$12.0K
Maryland$11.1K
District of Columbia$11.1K
Arkansas$10.3K
Nevada$8,529
Mississippi$8,362
Iowa$7,847
Maine$7,568
Wyoming$6,890
Utah$6,695
Connecticut$6,526
Nebraska$5,113
Hawaii$5,004
Kentucky$4,635
West Virginia$3,486
Alaska$2,694
South Dakota$2,572
Montana$2,509
New Hampshire$1,143
Delaware$893
Vermont$617
North Dakota$508
Rhode Island$241
3,569

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

41%

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

CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 3.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 22%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 69%69%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 1.1%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cruz's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.75 to +1.75: 22% between +0.75 and +1.00, 69% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.753.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0022%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2569%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.501.1%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cruz’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cruz’s own score is +1.08.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$1.4M 2,931 donors
  2. CEO$53.1K 28 donors
  3. OWNER$47.0K 28 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$46.4K 26 donors
  5. FARMER$26.0K 18 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS OF AMERICA, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (INSURPAC)$12.5K
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN REVIVAL PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. LA LOMITA INC.$28.0K 4 donors
  2. NEW YORK LIFE$12.0K 5 donors
  3. ARNOLD VENTURES$10.5K 3 donors
  4. FOX PACKAGING$4,500 3 donors
  5. ANAQUA FARMS$2,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cruz voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.6% of party-line votes and missed 5.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cruz voted against the majority of House Republicans 12 times.

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

12

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.6%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 84th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Cruz
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.0%
96.3%
188th of 221
Party unity
98.6%
97.1%
84th of 221
Show the data
Cruz's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowCruzPeers
Attendance94.0%96.3%
Party unity98.6%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 Cruz most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR498 shared votes99%
  2. Matt Van EppsR349 shared votes99%
  3. Andy BarrR589 shared votes98%
  4. Tony GonzalesR401 shared votes98%
  5. Guy ReschenthalerR615 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cruz least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD624 shared votes22%
  2. Delia RamirezD602 shared votes23%
  3. Adelita GrijalvaD374 shared votes24%
  4. Gregorio CasarD539 shared votes24%
  5. Brittany PettersenD536 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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Cruz sponsored 36 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 180 others. 14% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 96th of 216).

The bills Cruz 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

Sponsored36 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3636Sponsored, In committee: 3636Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored180 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 180180Cosponsored, In committee: 180180Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3535Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cruz sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3636411
Cosponsored1801803544
How to read the blocks

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

14%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 96th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler26
  2. Daniel Meuser19
  3. Zachary (Zach) Nunn18
  4. Dan Crenshaw14
  5. Pete Sessions14
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 Cruz’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. 10542Combating Pasture Mealybug ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1564Recognizing September 17, 2026, as National Teach Ag Day.CosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 17, 2026
H.Res. 1552Supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as "Gold Star Families Remembrance Week".CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on 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. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10312SBA Spanish Resource Report ActCosponsorSep 8, 2026In committeeCommerceReferred to the House Committee on Small Business. Sep 8, 2026
H.R. 10184Consumer Financial Protection Accountability and Reform Act of 2026CosponsorAug 31, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorOrdered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 21. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 43 times in 90 days. Cruz’s official site had 24 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cruz posted on Oct 15, 2026.

The lab crawls Cruz’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 Cruz 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 Cruz posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of store employees wearing orange aprons stand together in a home improvement store’s seasonal holiday section. Shelves behind them are stocked with Christmas decorations and supplies, including oversized ornaments and festive figures. Text appears on the aprons, product packaging, and store signs.
    A group of store employees wearing orange aprons stand together in a home improvement store’s seasonal holiday section. Shelves behind them are stocked with Christmas decorations and supplies, including oversized ornaments and festive figures. Text appears on the aprons, product packaging, and store signs.View post
  • Two people wearing orange aprons pose in front of wall displays and an orange circular values graphic. The man holds a paper, while the woman points toward him. There is text throughout the displays and on the aprons.
    Two people wearing orange aprons pose in front of wall displays and an orange circular values graphic. The man holds a paper, while the woman points toward him. There is text throughout the displays and on the aprons.View post
  • A group of retail employees wearing orange aprons gather in a store seasonal section. A woman and a man shake hands while coworkers look on. Holiday character displays and store shelving are visible behind them, along with signs and other text.
    A group of retail employees wearing orange aprons gather in a store seasonal section. A woman and a man shake hands while coworkers look on. Holiday character displays and store shelving are visible behind them, along with signs and other text.View post
  • A group of employees wearing orange aprons pose for a photo inside a workplace, in front of bulletin boards and a circular display. There is text on the aprons and displays.
    A group of employees wearing orange aprons pose for a photo inside a workplace, in front of bulletin boards and a circular display. There is text on the aprons and displays.View post
  • Three people sit around a conference table during a meeting. One man gestures while speaking, and the others listen. Name placards, notebooks, a cup, and banners are visible; there is text in the image.
    Three people sit around a conference table during a meeting. One man gestures while speaking, and the others listen. Name placards, notebooks, a cup, and banners are visible; there is text in the image.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 Cruz 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
D000594
Bioguide
D000594
FEC candidate ids
H0TX15124

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