Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Kentucky’s 2nd district

Serving since Jan 6, 2009119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide G000558FEC H8KY02031

Portrait of Brett Guthrie, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.5%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

0.5% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 209th of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $6.0M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 16% of Guthrie’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Kentucky, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans. 0.2% of Guthrie’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 2.1%).

The measures on which Guthrie 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.

Small donations, 2026

0.5%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 209th of 220

From Kentucky, 2026

16%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 199th of 216 House Republicans

Personal attacks

0.2%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 194th of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.59

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 186th of 221

Attendance

99.4%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 33rd of 221 · 674 roll calls

CSIP ideology

+0.90

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 Guthrie, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Guthrie is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Guthrie says

Guthrie attacks opponents personally less than 87% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 1,253 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 194th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Guthrie’s 1,253 statements in the 119th Congress (701 posts on X, 438 Congressional Record speeches, 73 press releases, 41 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%
Guthrie
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion809 statements
65%
68%
150th of 221
Credit claiming487 statements
39%
37%
103rd of 221
Bipartisanship170 statements
14%
9%
47th of 221
Policy criticism158 statements
13%
15%
136th of 221
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
194th of 221
Show the data
Guthrie's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowGuthriePeers
Policy discussion65%68%
Credit claiming39%37%
Bipartisanship14%9%
Policy criticism13%15%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,253

statements classified

701 posts on X, 438 Congressional Record speeches, 73 press releases, 41 newsletters.

posts on X: 701 (55.9%)posts on X 701Congressional Record speeches: 438 (35.0%)Congressional Record speeches 438press releases: 73 (5.8%)newsletters: 41 (3.3%)
Show the data
Guthrie's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X701
Congressional Record speeches438
press releases73
newsletters41
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Guthrie used extreme labels in 1.4% of statements, below the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”12
  2. “far left”6
  3. “extreme”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats6
  2. Washington Liberals2
  3. California liberals1
  4. Democrat plan1
  5. Democratic administrations1
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: 392025-02: 682025-03: 572025-04: 572025-05: 572025-06: 632025-07: 462025-08: 282025-09: 742025-10: 332025-11: 652025-12: 882026-01: 502026-02: 592026-03: 502026-04: 502026-05: 552026-06: 712026-07: 1002026-08: 132026-09: 1212026-10: 9peak 121 · Sep ’26Personal attackspeak 2.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.6% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.2% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 88Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 121Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 45.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 5.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 10.3% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-02: 14.7% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-03: 15.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-04: 7.0% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-05: 8.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-06: 11.1% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-07: 4.3% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-09: 23.0% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-10: 45.5% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-11: 16.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-12: 21.6% of 88Policy criticism, 2026-01: 24.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-02: 17.0% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-03: 10.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-04: 12.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-05: 5.5% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-06: 7.0% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-07: 1.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2026-08: 7.7% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.8% of 121Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 84.6% · Aug ’26 · latest 48.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 69.2% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-02: 61.8% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-03: 66.7% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-04: 71.9% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-05: 66.7% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-06: 82.5% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-07: 65.2% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-08: 75.0% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-09: 68.9% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-10: 72.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-11: 55.4% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-12: 56.8% of 88Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.2% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-03: 76.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-04: 70.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-05: 60.0% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-06: 59.2% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-07: 49.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2026-08: 84.6% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-09: 48.8% of 121Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 29.6% · Jun ’26 · latest 18.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 2.6% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.3% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 8.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 14.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 15.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 13.0% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.2% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 24.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 18.5% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 11.4% of 88Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 11.9% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 14.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 12.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 12.7% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 29.6% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 13.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 7.7% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 18.2% of 121Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 65.2% · Jul ’25 · latest 15.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 59.0% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-02: 32.4% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-03: 28.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-04: 52.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-05: 47.4% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-06: 47.6% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-07: 65.2% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-08: 50.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-09: 56.8% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-10: 30.3% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.2% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-12: 30.7% of 88Credit claiming, 2026-01: 40.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-02: 57.6% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-03: 46.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-04: 54.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-05: 38.2% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-06: 36.6% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-07: 20.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2026-08: 38.5% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-09: 15.7% of 121Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 18.2% · Oct ’25 · latest 1.7%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 5.1% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.5% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.6% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.4% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-10: 18.2% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.3% of 88Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.7% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.8% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.7% of 121Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Guthrie, 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 ’25392.6%10.3%69.2%2.6%59.0%5.1%
Feb ’25680.0%14.7%61.8%7.3%32.4%1.5%
Mar ’25570.0%15.8%66.7%7.0%28.1%0.0%
Apr ’25570.0%7.0%71.9%8.8%52.6%0.0%
May ’25570.0%8.8%66.7%14.0%47.4%0.0%
Jun ’25630.0%11.1%82.5%15.9%47.6%0.0%
Jul ’25462.2%4.3%65.2%13.0%65.2%2.2%
Aug ’25280.0%14.3%75.0%3.6%50.0%3.6%
Sep ’25740.0%23.0%68.9%12.2%56.8%1.4%
Oct ’25330.0%45.5%72.7%24.2%30.3%18.2%
Nov ’25650.0%16.9%55.4%18.5%29.2%0.0%
Dec ’25880.0%21.6%56.8%11.4%30.7%2.3%
Jan ’26500.0%24.0%84.0%14.0%40.0%0.0%
Feb ’26590.0%17.0%71.2%11.9%57.6%1.7%
Mar ’26500.0%10.0%76.0%14.0%46.0%0.0%
Apr ’26500.0%12.0%70.0%12.0%54.0%0.0%
May ’26550.0%5.5%60.0%12.7%38.2%1.8%
Jun ’26710.0%7.0%59.2%29.6%36.6%0.0%
Jul ’261000.0%1.0%49.0%13.0%20.0%0.0%
Aug ’26130.0%7.7%84.6%7.7%38.5%0.0%
Sep ’261210.0%5.8%48.8%18.2%15.7%1.7%
Oct ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. One month is hatched here.

In Guthrie’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Guthrie Votes in Favor of Legislation Authorizing Improvements in Kentucky Water Infrastructure Projects WASHINGTON, D.C., September 17, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02) issued the following statement after the House passage of H.R. 9497, the Water Resources Development Ac…

Sep 17, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works; Environmental Protection · Source

Personal attacks

Chairman Guthrie Op-Ed – Here's the truth: The One Big, Beautiful Bill actually strengthens Medicaid Bowling Green, KY – In a new op-ed in the Courier Journal, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie (KY-02) set the record straight on how the One Big, Beautiful Bill strengthen…

Jul 29, 2025 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Taxation; Immigration; Armed Forces and National Security; Energy; Environmental Protection; Economics and Public Finance; Labor and Employment; target: colleagues · Source

Extreme label

Brett’s Bulletin: Recapping a Full Week in Washington Last week, the House had a productive week in Washington, advancing essential pieces of l September 24, 2026 [Representative Brett Guthrie]<https://guthrie.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=456416-72893932> Brett’s Bulletin: Recapping a…

Sep 24, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; International Affairs; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Environmental Protection; Health; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works; Agriculture and Food; extreme label “far left” aimed at Green New Deal

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. Press releases

    Chairman Guthrie Op-Ed – Here's the truth: The One Big, Beautiful Bill actually strengthens Medicaid Bowling Green, KY – In a new op-ed in the Courier Journal, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie (KY-02) set the record straight on how the One Big, Beautiful Bill strengthens Medicaid for the Kentuckians the program is intended to serve: mothers, children, seniors, and people with disabilitie…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Taxation · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · Energy · Environmental Protection · Economics and Public Finance · Labor and Employment · target: colleaguesSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Dr. FauciSource

All 1,253 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: 701 posts on X, 438 Congressional Record speeches, 73 press releases, 41 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Guthrie talks about most: 31% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 186th 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 Guthrie talks about. The bills Guthrie sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Guthrie talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Guthrie
Peers
Health251 statements
31%
15%
Energy226 statements
28%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security136 statements
17%
24%
Science, Technology, Communications130 statements
16%
7%
Economics and Public Finance125 statements
15%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Guthrie talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowGuthriePeers
Health31%15%
Energy28%9%
Armed Forces and National Security17%24%
Science, Technology, Communications16%7%
Economics and Public Finance15%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Guthrie’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 onHealthHealth, talks about: 31% (House Republicans 15%)31%Health, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 11%)12%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 28% (House Republicans 9%)28%Energy, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 3%)0%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 24%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 8%)8%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 7%)16%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 3%)5%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 19%)15%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%
Show the data
Guthrie's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Health31%15%12%11%
Energy28%9%0%3%
Armed Forces and National Security17%24%8%8%
Science, Technology, Communications16%7%5%3%
Economics and Public Finance15%19%1%2%
0.59

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 186th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Guthrie sits at +0.90 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 65% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.89 to +0.92, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,232 donors and 7,537 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”.

+0.90

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.89 to +0.92. From 2,232 donors and 7,537 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Guthrie +0.9House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Guthrie, 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 Guthrie’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 Guthrie sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Guthrie +0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Guthrie's CSIP score of +0.90 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Guthrie
House Republicans221+1.034%
All House439+0.367%
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 Guthrie 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 Guthrie.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Guthrie raised $6.0M in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 16% of itemized individual money came from Kentucky.

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
$6.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 975 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): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.8%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)PACs and other committees: $3.4M (56.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $807.9K (13.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)30 squares$1.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$9,570
  • PACs and other committees57 squares$3.4M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)13 squares$807.9K
Show the data
Sources of Guthrie's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.8M29.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$9,5700.2%
PACs and other committees$3.4M56.5%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$807.9K13.5%
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: $1.4M$1.4M20202022 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20222024 cycle: $3.8M$3.8M20242026 cycle: $6.0M$6.0M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Guthrie's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.4M
2022 cycle$2.3M
2024 cycle$3.8M
2026 cycle$6.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 16% came from Kentucky.

  1. Kentucky$287.6K
  2. Virginia$285.4K
  3. District of Columbia$220.3K
  4. California$164.0K
  5. New York$119.9K

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%
Guthrie
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
4%
9%
2022
7%
9%
2020
15%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowGuthrieMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle4%9%
2022 cycle7%9%
2020 cycle15%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $1,041MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $27.5KWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $23.2KMNIllinois: $13.3KILWisconsin: $8,111WIMichigan: $16.7KMINew York: $119.9KNYRhode Island: $2,500RIMassachusetts: $22.8KMAOregon: $6,000ORNevada: $14.0KNVWyoming: $500WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $7,520INOhio: $19.8KOHPennsylvania: $27.0KPANew Jersey: $20.0KNJConnecticut: $8,070CTCalifornia: $164.0KCAUtah: $10.5KUTColorado: $18.0KCONebraska: $208NEMissouri: $8,000MOKentucky: $287.6KKYWest Virginia: $2,791WVVirginia: $285.4KVAMaryland: $60.4KMDDelaware: $1,000DEArizona: $260AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $2,500KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $45.1KTNNorth Carolina: $24.1KNCSouth Carolina: $12.0KSCDistrict of Columbia: $220.3KDCOklahoma: $13.8KOKLouisiana: $6,500LAMississippi: $3,300MSAlabama: $22.8KALGeorgia: $18.8KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $109.3KTXFlorida: $79.0KFL
Show the data
Guthrie's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Kentucky$287.6K
Virginia$285.4K
District of Columbia$220.3K
California$164.0K
New York$119.9K
Texas$109.3K
Florida$79.0K
Maryland$60.4K
Tennessee$45.1K
Washington$27.5K
Pennsylvania$27.0K
North Carolina$24.1K
Minnesota$23.2K
Massachusetts$22.8K
Alabama$22.8K
New Jersey$20.0K
Ohio$19.8K
Georgia$18.8K
Colorado$18.0K
Michigan$16.7K
Nevada$14.0K
Oklahoma$13.8K
Illinois$13.3K
South Carolina$12.0K
Utah$10.5K
Wisconsin$8,111
Connecticut$8,070
Missouri$8,000
Indiana$7,520
Louisiana$6,500
Oregon$6,000
Mississippi$3,300
West Virginia$2,791
Rhode Island$2,500
Kansas$2,500
Maine$1,041
Delaware$1,000
Wyoming$500
Arizona$260
Nebraska$208
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
HawaiiNo data
975

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

16%

from Kentucky

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 Kentucky. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.9%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 4.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 8.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 7.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.4%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 57%57%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 4.8%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Guthrie's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 8.4% between −0.25 and 0.00, 7.9% between 0.00 and +0.25, 6.2% between +0.25 and +0.50, 9.4% between +0.50 and +0.75, 57% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.9%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.254.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.008.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.257.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.4%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0057%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.254.8%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Guthrie’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Guthrie’s own score is +0.90.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CONSULTANT$211.2K 80 donors
  2. CEO$191.8K 94 donors
  3. PARTNER$111.1K 29 donors
  4. LOBBYIST$66.4K 43 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$64.7K 32 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. HALL RENDER KILLIAN HEATH & LYMAN PC EMPLOYEE PAC AKA HALLWAY PAC FEDERAL$15.0K
  2. THOROUGHBRED PAC$10.5K
  3. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. ABBVIE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. GOOGLE$64.5K 7 donors
  2. ATT$60.5K 36 donors
  3. COMCAST$28.1K 19 donors
  4. NYCBS$23.5K 22 donors
  5. ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ$21.0K 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Guthrie voted with the majority of House Republicans on 96.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.6% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Guthrie voted against the majority of House Republicans 15 times.

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

15

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 96.8%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 166th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Guthrie
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
96.3%
33rd of 221
Party unity
96.8%
97.1%
166th of 221
Show the data
Guthrie's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowGuthriePeers
Attendance99.4%96.3%
Party unity96.8%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 Guthrie most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR521 shared votes100%
  2. Cliff BentzR669 shared votes99%
  3. Frank LucasR659 shared votes99%
  4. Hal RogersR658 shared votes99%
  5. John MoolenaarR668 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Guthrie least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD388 shared votes25%
  2. Rashida TlaibD657 shared votes26%
  3. Delia RamirezD637 shared votes26%
  4. Dan GoldmanD586 shared votes27%
  5. Gregorio CasarD571 shared votes27%
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

Guthrie sponsored 11 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 97 others. 27% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 39th of 216).

The bills Guthrie 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

Sponsored11 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1111Sponsored, In committee: 1111Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored97 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 9797Cosponsored, In committee: 9797Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1414Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Guthrie sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1111211
Cosponsored97971411
How to read the blocks

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

27%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 39th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. James Comer7
  2. Andy Barr6
  3. Hal Rogers6
  4. Glenn Grothman5
  5. Morgan McGarvey5
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 Guthrie’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.Res. 1607Expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "National Workforce Development Month".CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10453Communications and Technology Transparency Act of 2026CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 16, 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. 9535Securing Agriculture's Workforce Act of 2026CosponsorJun 30, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jun 30, 2026
H.R. 9452Budgeting for a Better America ActCosponsorJun 24, 2026In committeeEconomics and Public FinanceReferred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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. Jun 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 55 times in 90 days. Guthrie’s official site had 39 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Guthrie posted on Oct 21, 2026.

The lab crawls Guthrie’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 Guthrie posts with a vision model.

Websites

  • Official site

    guthrie.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    39

    pages crawled

    55

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    brettguthrie.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    3

    pages crawled

    3

    changes 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.

Images Guthrie posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man in a suit speaks at a wooden podium in a municipal meeting room. Behind him are tables covered with blue and white cloths, empty chairs, flower arrangements, and framed pictures and documents on the wall. Text appears on the podium, table nameplates, and a city emblem.
    A man in a suit speaks at a wooden podium in a municipal meeting room. Behind him are tables covered with blue and white cloths, empty chairs, flower arrangements, and framed pictures and documents on the wall. Text appears on the podium, table nameplates, and a city emblem.View post
  • A group of people pose together for a photo outdoors on a paved path beside a cemetery. A white vehicle, gravestones, trees, and distant hills are visible in the background. Some clothing has text.
    A group of people pose together for a photo outdoors on a paved path beside a cemetery. A white vehicle, gravestones, trees, and distant hills are visible in the background. Some clothing has text.View post
  • A group of adults stands on a sunny sidewalk beside a road, with houses, trees, utility poles, and a cemetery visible in the background. Some clothing contains text.
    A group of adults stands on a sunny sidewalk beside a road, with houses, trees, utility poles, and a cemetery visible in the background. Some clothing contains text.View post
  • A woman speaks at a wooden lectern in a meeting room while several people sit facing her. A table with a city seal and framed photographs and plaques are visible. There is text on the lectern, tablecloth, and wall displays.
    A woman speaks at a wooden lectern in a meeting room while several people sit facing her. A table with a city seal and framed photographs and plaques are visible. There is text on the lectern, tablecloth, and wall displays.View post
  • A formal dark blue pledge document with a large title, several paragraphs, a numbered list of six commitments, a vice-presidential seal, and two handwritten signatures near the bottom.
    A formal dark blue pledge document with a large title, several paragraphs, a numbered list of six commitments, a vice-presidential seal, and two handwritten signatures near the bottom.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 Guthrie 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
G000558
Bioguide
G000558
FEC candidate ids
H8KY02031

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