Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · bipartisanship · Source
108
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 77%, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (average 97.1%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
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 Fitzpatrick voted with the majority of House Republicans; it is ranked among House Republicans. The count covers every roll call where Fitzpatrick voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. Fitzpatrick sits at +0.15 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 99% of House Republicans. The policy areas Fitzpatrick talks about and legislates on agree at 0.77 on a 0–1 scale, in the top 5% of House Republicans.
The measures on which Fitzpatrick 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.
Party unity
77%
House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 219th of 221 · 108 votes against the majority of House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.15
More liberal than 99% of House Republicans · ± 0.01
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.77
House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 2nd of 221
Bipartisanship
23%
House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 8th of 221
From Pennsylvania, 2026
8.5%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 208th of 216 House Republicans
Out of committee
2.3%
House Republicans average 17% · ranks 205th of 216
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Fitzpatrick, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Fitzpatrick is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Fitzpatrick says
Fitzpatrick attacks opponents personally less than 88% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 1,914 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 196th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Fitzpatrick’s 1,914 statements in the 119th Congress (1,576 posts on X, 147 Congressional Record speeches, 117 press releases, 74 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%
Fitzpatrick
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,031 statements
54%
68%
200th of 221
Credit claiming600 statements
31%
37%
159th of 221
Bipartisanship438 statements
23%
9%
8th of 221
Policy criticism196 statements
10%
15%
170th of 221
Personal attacks3 statements
0%
2%
196th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Fitzpatrick | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 54% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 31% | 37% |
| Bipartisanship | 23% | 9% |
| Policy criticism | 10% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
1,914
statements classified
1,576 posts on X, 147 Congressional Record speeches, 117 press releases, 74 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,576 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 147 |
| press releases | 117 |
| newsletters | 74 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Fitzpatrick; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Fitzpatrick does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Fitzpatrick used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 14% of the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at gerrymandering; peers 3.0%.
- “extreme”7
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- gerrymandering2
- extremism1
- partisan gerrymandering1
- political parties1
- politics1
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 | 95 | 1.1% | 12.6% | 52.6% | 30.5% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 125 | 0.0% | 10.4% | 56.8% | 27.2% | 38.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 135 | 0.7% | 7.4% | 54.1% | 17.8% | 23.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 142 | 0.0% | 11.3% | 51.4% | 23.2% | 31.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 113 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 54.0% | 21.2% | 32.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 114 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 52.6% | 21.9% | 34.2% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 79 | 0.0% | 8.9% | 49.4% | 21.5% | 35.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 58 | 0.0% | 17.2% | 62.1% | 20.7% | 41.4% | 1.7% |
| Sep ’25 | 110 | 0.0% | 6.4% | 50.0% | 31.8% | 30.0% | 0.9% |
| Oct ’25 | 98 | 0.0% | 10.2% | 44.9% | 20.4% | 27.6% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 81 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 46.9% | 21.0% | 23.5% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 70 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 75.7% | 34.3% | 38.6% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 67 | 0.0% | 10.4% | 61.2% | 26.9% | 29.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 70 | 0.0% | 22.9% | 52.9% | 20.0% | 35.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 88 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 48.9% | 17.1% | 28.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 90 | 1.1% | 11.1% | 58.9% | 21.1% | 31.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 77 | 0.0% | 24.7% | 54.5% | 26.0% | 28.6% | 3.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 62 | 0.0% | 14.5% | 46.8% | 21.0% | 32.3% | 3.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 64 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 56.3% | 28.1% | 32.8% | 1.6% |
| Aug ’26 | 47 | 0.0% | 6.4% | 59.6% | 19.1% | 25.5% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 72 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 54.2% | 18.1% | 20.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 52.6% | 8.8% | 26.3% | 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 Fitzpatrick’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Fitzpatrick Defends Pope, Blasts Trump Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s comments regarding Pope Leo: “I condemn President Trump’s remarks about Pope Leo in the strongest possible terms. The Holy Father is the successor to Saint Peter, the…
Apr 13, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 29, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “extreme” aimed at political parties · 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.
Press releases
Fitzpatrick Defends Pope, Blasts Trump Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s comments regarding Pope Leo: “I condemn President Trump’s remarks about Pope Leo in the strongest possible terms. The Holy Father is the successor to Saint Peter, the shepherd of the Church, and a moral voice for more than 1.4 billion Catholics around the world. He is not a partisan fi…
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · target: CongressSource
Press releases
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1), along with Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Cory Mills (FL-7), and Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-8), have united to introduce the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act—legislation that will prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependents from owning or trading individual stocks. This bipartisan initiative marks a decisive s…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial SectorSource
All 1,914 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: 1,576 posts on X, 147 Congressional Record speeches, 117 press releases, 74 newsletters.
Policy
Health is what Fitzpatrick talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.77 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 2nd 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 Fitzpatrick talks about. The bills Fitzpatrick sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Fitzpatrick talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Fitzpatrick
Peers
Health282 statements
27%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security245 statements
24%
24%
Government Operations and Politics214 statements
21%
19%
International Affairs188 statements
18%
9%
Education146 statements
14%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Fitzpatrick | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 27% | 15% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 24% | 24% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 19% |
| International Affairs | 18% | 9% |
| Education | 14% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Fitzpatrick’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% | 17% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 24% | 24% | 8% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 19% | 11% | 12% |
| International Affairs | 18% | 9% | 8% | 6% |
| Education | 14% | 8% | 5% | 3% |
0.77
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 2nd of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Fitzpatrick legislates on exactly the areas Fitzpatrick 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 Fitzpatrick sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Fitzpatrick sits at +0.15 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 99% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.14 to +0.16, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,642 donors and 5,041 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”.
+0.15
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.14 to +0.16. From 4,642 donors and 5,041 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Fitzpatrick, 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 Fitzpatrick’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 Fitzpatrick 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 Fitzpatrick |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 0% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 50% |
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 Fitzpatrick 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 Fitzpatrick.
Money
Fitzpatrick raised $8.0M in the 2026 cycle, 3.7 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 8.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 8.5% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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.
$8.0M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 963 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)22 squares$1.8M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$154.8K
- PACs and other committees33 squares$2.7M
- Party committees$12.1K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)43 squares$3.4M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.8M | 21.9% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $154.8K | 1.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $2.7M | 33.4% |
| Party committees | $12.1K | 0.2% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $3.4M | 42.7% |
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 | $4.2M |
| 2022 cycle | $4.6M |
| 2024 cycle | $6.4M |
| 2026 cycle | $8.0M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 8.5% came from Pennsylvania.
- New York$214.0K
- California$212.5K
- Florida$201.0K
- Pennsylvania$127.3K
- New Jersey$107.1K
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%
Fitzpatrick
Median
2026
8%
9%
2024
3%
9%
2022
4%
9%
2020
16%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Fitzpatrick | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 8% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 3% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 4% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 16% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $214.0K |
| California | $212.5K |
| Florida | $201.0K |
| Pennsylvania | $127.3K |
| New Jersey | $107.1K |
| Massachusetts | $72.7K |
| Virginia | $66.7K |
| Texas | $59.2K |
| Illinois | $53.2K |
| Maryland | $48.0K |
| Connecticut | $35.1K |
| District of Columbia | $33.1K |
| Colorado | $19.6K |
| Washington | $18.8K |
| North Carolina | $18.1K |
| Minnesota | $15.3K |
| Wisconsin | $14.0K |
| Alabama | $13.0K |
| Ohio | $11.8K |
| Oregon | $9,570 |
| New Hampshire | $8,900 |
| Louisiana | $8,500 |
| Tennessee | $8,037 |
| Arkansas | $8,000 |
| South Carolina | $8,000 |
| Delaware | $7,041 |
| Michigan | $7,010 |
| Georgia | $6,728 |
| Idaho | $6,700 |
| Iowa | $6,000 |
| Arizona | $4,500 |
| Nevada | $4,250 |
| Missouri | $3,500 |
| Wyoming | $2,914 |
| Kansas | $2,750 |
| West Virginia | $2,000 |
| Utah | $1,750 |
| Oklahoma | $1,550 |
| Kentucky | $1,500 |
| Hawaii | $1,500 |
| South Dakota | $1,007 |
| Montana | $1,000 |
| Rhode Island | $1,000 |
| New Mexico | $638 |
| Mississippi | $500 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
963
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
8.5%
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. 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 −1.25 to −1.00 | 0.4% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 3.5% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 6.0% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 8.4% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 13% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 24% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 12% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 17% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 16% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.4% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Fitzpatrick’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Fitzpatrick’s own score is +0.15.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$228.9K 140 donors
- CEO$119.0K 52 donors
- REAL ESTATE$66.7K 76 donors
- EXECUTIVE$55.6K 23 donors
- ATTORNEY$51.7K 47 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- NATIONAL ACTIVE AND RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COM (NARFE-PAC)$12.5K
- A NEW NATION PAC$10.0K
- ABRAHAM LINCOLN PAC$10.0K
- AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
- ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NEW YORK LIFE$16.5K 7 donors
- APOLLO$15.8K 7 donors
- BLACKSTONE$11.5K 3 donors
- NEW YORK LIFE INS CO$10.0K 3 donors
- RBC CAPITAL MARKETS$8,750 8 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Fitzpatrick voted with the majority of House Republicans on 77% of party-line votes and missed 0.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Fitzpatrick voted against the majority of House Republicans 108 times.
674 roll calls Fitzpatrick 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 Fitzpatrick voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
108
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 77%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 219th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Fitzpatrick, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Fitzpatrick
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.1%
96.3%
49th of 221
Party unity
77%
97.1%
219th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Fitzpatrick | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.1% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 77% | 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 | Nay | Against 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 Fitzpatrick most often
- Michael LawlerR658 shared votes90%
- Thomas Kean Jr.R522 shared votes89%
- Mark E. GreenR168 shared votes89%
- Robert BresnahanR662 shared votes89%
- Nicolas LaLotaR657 shared votes89%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Fitzpatrick least often
- Rashida TlaibD652 shared votes40%
- Eric SwalwellD300 shared votes40%
- Delia RamirezD635 shared votes40%
- Gregorio CasarD569 shared votes42%
- Lizzie FletcherD654 shared votes42%
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
Fitzpatrick sponsored 88 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 1,278 others. 2.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 205th of 216).
The bills Fitzpatrick 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 | 88 | 88 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 1,278 | 1,278 | 82 | 10 | 9 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Fitzpatrick sponsored, ochre blocks bills Fitzpatrick cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
2.3%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 205th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Fitzpatrick, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Michael Lawler243
- Josh Gottheimer157
- Eleanor Norton135
- Don Bacon133
- Eugene Vindman116
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 Fitzpatrick’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. 10858 | CARE for Blood Cancer Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10866 | Ronald Reagan Peace Through Strength Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, 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. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10869 | Protect Clean Water Act | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10884 | To provide additional options on certain federal application forms to allow an individual to elect to be an organ donor and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Veterans' Affairs, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10815 | Bright Beginnings Act | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 15, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 62 times in 90 days. Fitzpatrick’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Fitzpatrick posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Fitzpatrick’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 Fitzpatrick posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 38
pages crawled
62changes in 90 days
- 34
pages crawled
52changes 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
- XRepBrianFitz
- Facebookrepbrianfitzpatrick
- Instagramrepbrianfitz
- Emailpa01bf.outreach@mail.house.gov
Images Fitzpatrick posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A collage of nine photos showing people socializing at a community gathering indoors. Adults and young people pose together, talk, and mingle around refreshments; in one photo, a man speaks into a microphone. A wall emblem and some text are visible.View post 
A collage of nine photos showing a gray-haired man greeting and talking with people at an outdoor community event. He shakes hands with attendees, meets a child and volunteers, and poses for group photos beside a colorful vehicle. There is text visible on signs, clothing, and the vehicle.View post 
A collage of photographs showing people gathered at a community event in a banquet hall. Attendees chat, pose for group photos, and gather around tables with food and supplies. Some people wear festive headbands. There is text on clothing and table materials.View post 
A collage of photographs showing a social gathering in a brightly decorated banquet room. Guests are seated at tables, mingling and greeting one another, while a man speaks and poses for a group photo in front of a red, ornate backdrop. Text is not prominent.View post 
A two-part photo collage shows a group of people posing in an office or community space decorated with colorful stars and a supporter-themed mural. In the lower photo, a man and woman pose together holding a framed certificate and a folded triangular American flag. Text is visible on the mural and certificate.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 Fitzpatrick 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
- F000466
- Bioguide
- F000466
- FEC candidate ids
- H6PA08277
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