32% of 853 statements discuss policy (273 statements); the average for House Republicans is 68%. Ranks 220th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Foxx’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against House Republicans. 56% of the 34 bills Foxx sponsored got out of committee, in the top 5% of House Republicans. 19% of Foxx’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 37%).
The measures on which Foxx sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 220th of 221
Out of committee
House Republicans average 17% · ranks 4th of 216
Party unity
House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 10th of 221 · 11 votes against the majority of House Republicans
Credit claiming
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 205th of 221
Personal attacks
House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 27th of 221
CSIP ideology
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 Foxx, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Foxx is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Foxx attacks opponents personally more than 87% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 5.3% of 853 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 27th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Foxx’s 853 statements in the 119th Congress (508 posts on X, 238 Congressional Record speeches, 92 newsletters, 15 press releases) 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Foxx | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 32% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 19% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 7% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 5% | 2% |
statements classified
508 posts on X, 238 Congressional Record speeches, 92 newsletters, 15 press releases.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 508 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 238 |
| newsletters | 92 |
| press releases | 15 |
The thick bar is Foxx; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Foxx does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Foxx used extreme labels in 2.5% of statements, below the peer average. 21 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 38 | 2.6% | 10.5% | 18.4% | 5.3% | 21.1% | 10.5% |
| Feb ’25 | 56 | 1.8% | 8.9% | 14.3% | 3.6% | 12.5% | 1.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 82 | 4.9% | 18.3% | 24.4% | 4.9% | 8.5% | 2.4% |
| Apr ’25 | 46 | 10.9% | 32.6% | 43.5% | 15.2% | 23.9% | 2.2% |
| May ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 29.6% | 11.1% | 14.8% | 3.7% |
| Jun ’25 | 38 | 5.3% | 21.1% | 42.1% | 5.3% | 23.7% | 2.6% |
| Jul ’25 | 104 | 1.9% | 4.8% | 15.4% | 3.9% | 9.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 15.8% | 31.6% | 5.3% | 21.1% | 5.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 43 | 9.3% | 7.0% | 27.9% | 2.3% | 16.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 100 | 12.0% | 27.0% | 32.0% | 2.0% | 5.0% | 3.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 55 | 7.3% | 12.7% | 27.3% | 1.8% | 21.8% | 1.8% |
| Dec ’25 | 27 | 11.1% | 7.4% | 33.3% | 3.7% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 40.0% | 12.5% | 37.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 29 | 3.5% | 3.5% | 31.0% | 6.9% | 20.7% | 3.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 25 | 4.0% | 32.0% | 56.0% | 28.0% | 32.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 12 | 8.3% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 58.3% | 8.3% |
| May ’26 | 10 | 10.0% | 30.0% | 70.0% | 40.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 26 | 3.9% | 15.4% | 34.6% | 15.4% | 30.8% | 3.9% |
| Jul ’26 | 36 | 2.8% | 11.1% | 41.7% | 2.8% | 19.4% | 5.6% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’26 | 23 | 4.3% | 4.3% | 56.5% | 17.4% | 43.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 2 months are hatched here.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
Be On Your Guard [https://virginiafoxx.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/HighResolution/5a724dce-e88e-4dba-8119-f01c0c144283.jpg] Friday, October 23, 2026 WEBSITE<https://foxx.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=462352-72461013> | SHARE ON: [http://massieforms.house.gov/images/FaceBook_16x16.png] <http…
Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Taxation
Personal attacks
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the 119th Congress, the House has been the most aggressive, successful, and productive since the 80th Congress in 1949. Total measures passed by the House are 899. Tax relief was $82 billion across all filers this tax season wit…
Sep 1, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation; Government Operations and Politics; target: Joe Biden · Source
Extreme label
This Is The Way [https://virginiafoxx.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/HighResolution/5a724dce-e88e-4dba-8119-f01c0c144283.jpg] Friday, August 28, 2026 WEBSITE<https://foxx.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=462174-72461013> | SHARE ON: [http://massieforms.house.gov/images/FaceBook_16x16.png] <http:/…
Aug 28, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; Taxation; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “far left, woke” aimed at far-left
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.
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the 119th Congress, the House has been the most aggressive, successful, and productive since the 80th Congress in 1949. Total measures passed by the House are 899. Tax relief was $82 billion across all filers this tax season with 97 percent of all tax filers receiving a tax cut last year, and the 3 percent who didn't were the highest earners in t…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Taxation · Government Operations and Politics · target: Joe BidenSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the American people need to take note of the amount of rhetorical smog emanating from the other side of the Chamber, because it is obscene. Our Democratic colleagues continue to weave together an entirely disingenuous and deceptive narrative that Democrats are the ones standing at the forefront of the conversation when it comes to supporting our Nat…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Health · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: DemocratsSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday and produced a rule, H Res. 1336, providing for same-day authority when the House considers the forthcoming reconciliation measure from the Senate. Granting same-day authority will allow the House to advance this legislation to President Trump's desk for his prompt signature and fulfill our commitment to fully fund…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · LawSource
Newsletters
Justice Is Served [https://virginiafoxx.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/HighResolution/5a724dce-e88e-4dba-8119-f01c0c144283.jpg] Friday, May 29, 2026 WEBSITE<https://foxx.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=461973-72461013> | SHARE ON: [http://massieforms.house.gov/images/FaceBook_16x16.png] <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://foxx.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=UMJO3FS45P45NHCIMSBGKLBDSY&t=Justice+Is+Ser…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Amy Bock
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and doing such a great job in handling this rule and being on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the staff of the Rules Committee for their great work under very difficult circumstances almost every day, but especially this week. Mr. Speaker, I am going to share with you and with all of our Republican colleagues an observation about the behavior of Democrats…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · TaxationSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 508 posts on X, 238 Congressional Record speeches, 92 newsletters, 15 press releases.
Government Operations and Politics is what Foxx talks about most: 49% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 129th 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 Foxx talks about. The bills Foxx sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Foxx | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 49% | 19% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 39% | 19% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 28% | 24% |
| Education | 24% | 8% |
| Health | 21% | 15% |
The thick bar is the share of Foxx’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.
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 54%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 49% | 19% | 37% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 39% | 19% | 3% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 28% | 24% | 0% | 8% |
| Education | 24% | 8% | 9% | 3% |
| Health | 21% | 15% | 5% | 11% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 129th of 221.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Foxx legislates on exactly the areas Foxx 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 Foxx sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Foxx sits at +1.13 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 69% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.11 to +1.14, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,984 donors and 7,464 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +1.11 to +1.14. From 2,984 donors and 7,464 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Foxx, 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 Foxx’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Foxx |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 68% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 84% |
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 Foxx 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 Foxx.
Foxx raised $2.2M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 2.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 50% of itemized individual money came from North Carolina.
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.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 557 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.4M | 65.5% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $30.6K | 1.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $593.8K | 27.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $131.6K | 6.0% |
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.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.9M |
| 2022 cycle | $2.2M |
| 2024 cycle | $2.4M |
| 2026 cycle | $2.2M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 50% came from North Carolina.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
| Row | Foxx | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 2% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 4% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 11% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 7% | 9% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| North Carolina | $529.5K |
| Florida | $224.7K |
| New York | $72.9K |
| Virginia | $35.5K |
| Connecticut | $33.8K |
| California | $28.5K |
| New Jersey | $25.1K |
| South Carolina | $17.5K |
| Texas | $12.3K |
| Illinois | $9,750 |
| Ohio | $8,750 |
| Missouri | $8,100 |
| Pennsylvania | $7,250 |
| Georgia | $6,350 |
| District of Columbia | $5,250 |
| Indiana | $5,000 |
| Maryland | $4,250 |
| Wisconsin | $4,100 |
| Tennessee | $3,750 |
| New Hampshire | $3,000 |
| Nebraska | $2,000 |
| Oklahoma | $2,000 |
| Michigan | $1,500 |
| Massachusetts | $1,500 |
| Nevada | $1,500 |
| Alabama | $1,312 |
| Kentucky | $1,200 |
| Arizona | $1,050 |
| Montana | $1,000 |
| Minnesota | $1,000 |
| Utah | $1,000 |
| Louisiana | $300 |
| North Dakota | $250 |
| Kansas | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from North Carolina
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is North Carolina. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.3% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 1.4% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 1.1% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 1.3% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 4.1% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 5.9% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 7.2% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 29% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 49% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.4% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Foxx’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Foxx’s own score is +1.13.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Foxx voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Foxx voted against the majority of House Republicans 11 times.
674 roll calls Foxx 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 Foxx voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 99.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 10th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Foxx, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Foxx | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 99.5% | 97.1% |
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.
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 |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Foxx most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Foxx least often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Foxx sponsored 34 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 104 others. 56% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 4th of 216).
The bills Foxx 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.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 34 | 34 | 16 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 104 | 104 | 16 | 1 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Foxx sponsored, ochre blocks bills Foxx cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 4th of 216.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Foxx, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
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 Foxx’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10832 | IRAN Act | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 10667 | Disaster Recovery and Resilience Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management | Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10619 | Spending Safeguard Act | Sponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance | Referred to the House Committee on the Budget. Sep 28, 2026 |
| H.R. 10389 | Survivor’s Voice Protection Act | Cosponsor | Sep 15, 2026 | In committee | Law | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 10310 | Robo COP Act | Sponsor | Sep 8, 2026 | In committee | Commerce | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 8, 2026 |
A site that changed 54 times in 90 days. Foxx’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Foxx posted on Sep 24, 2026.
The lab crawls Foxx’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 Foxx posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline is the measure on which Foxx 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
