Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs · Source
13%
of roll calls missed, the lowest attendance of 45 Senate Democrats
Attendance 87%; the average among Senate Democrats is 97.0%. Ranks 45th of 45, where 1st has the highest attendance. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Gallego could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked among Senate Democrats. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Democrats. Gallego sits at −0.77 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 97% of Senate Democrats. Gallego voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 62 times; party unity 91.7%, in the bottom quarter of Senate Democrats (average 95.3%).
The measures on which Gallego sits furthest from the middle of Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
87%
Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 45th of 45 · 915 roll calls
CSIP ideology
−0.77
More conservative than 97% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.02
Party unity
91.7%
Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 37th of 45 · 62 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Policy criticism
33%
Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 37th of 45
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.69
Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 9th of 45
Small donations, 2026
50%
Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 11th of 45
Peer group: Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gallego, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gallego is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gallego says
Gallego attacks opponents personally less than 66% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 7.8% of 2,218 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 31st of 45.
An AI model reads each of Gallego’s 2,218 statements in the 119th Congress (1,563 posts on X, 555 press releases, 55 Congressional Record speeches, 45 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Gallego
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,682 statements
76%
78%
30th of 45
Policy criticism741 statements
33%
37%
37th of 45
Credit claiming560 statements
25%
26%
25th of 45
Bipartisanship304 statements
14%
18%
31st of 45
Personal attacks174 statements
8%
11%
31st of 45
Show the data
| Row | Gallego | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 76% | 78% |
| Policy criticism | 33% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 25% | 26% |
| Bipartisanship | 14% | 18% |
| Personal attacks | 8% | 11% |
2,218
statements classified
1,563 posts on X, 555 press releases, 55 Congressional Record speeches, 45 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,563 |
| press releases | 555 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 55 |
| newsletters | 45 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gallego; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Gallego does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gallego used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, 34% of the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 2.4%.
- “extreme”8
- “MAGA”3
- “far right”2
- “fascist”1
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Donald Trump2
- Republicans2
- abortion bans1
- Anna Luna1
- Anna Paulina Luna1
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 | 88 | 5.7% | 30.7% | 72.7% | 11.4% | 30.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 137 | 9.5% | 37.2% | 67.9% | 11.7% | 24.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 154 | 7.1% | 33.8% | 68.8% | 14.9% | 29.2% | 0.7% |
| Apr ’25 | 141 | 4.3% | 43.3% | 79.4% | 13.5% | 25.5% | 1.4% |
| May ’25 | 88 | 5.7% | 36.4% | 75.0% | 10.2% | 21.6% | 2.3% |
| Jun ’25 | 80 | 5.0% | 46.3% | 66.3% | 3.8% | 11.3% | 1.3% |
| Jul ’25 | 78 | 6.4% | 39.7% | 64.1% | 5.1% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 42 | 2.4% | 50.0% | 71.4% | 9.5% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 80 | 6.3% | 36.3% | 58.8% | 10.0% | 16.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 98 | 15.3% | 38.8% | 80.6% | 25.5% | 20.4% | 2.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 103 | 8.7% | 27.2% | 67.0% | 12.6% | 23.3% | 1.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 110 | 3.6% | 29.1% | 73.6% | 17.3% | 38.2% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 129 | 17.8% | 17.1% | 87.6% | 12.4% | 30.2% | 1.6% |
| Feb ’26 | 142 | 13.4% | 31.7% | 70.4% | 11.3% | 23.9% | 1.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 127 | 9.4% | 46.5% | 74.8% | 12.6% | 26.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 85 | 8.2% | 30.6% | 82.3% | 9.4% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 90 | 5.6% | 36.7% | 81.1% | 13.3% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 80 | 7.5% | 31.3% | 70.0% | 18.8% | 22.5% | 2.5% |
| Jul ’26 | 99 | 7.1% | 18.2% | 80.8% | 15.2% | 30.3% | 1.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 84 | 5.9% | 26.2% | 88.1% | 13.1% | 30.9% | 1.2% |
| Sep ’26 | 112 | 3.6% | 30.4% | 91.1% | 25.9% | 22.3% | 0.9% |
| Oct ’26 | 71 | 4.2% | 25.4% | 97.2% | 18.3% | 22.5% | 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 Gallego’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Standing up to Trump and Fighting for AI Oversight at the United Nations [Image] EMAIL RUBEN<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenGallego&crop=15546.50131771.7625561.8279223&report_id=EMAIL+RUBEN&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.gallego.senate.gov%2fshare-your-opinion%2f&redir_…
Oct 15, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Foreign Trade and International Finance; target: Donald Trump
Extreme label
Gallego Travels to Canada Amid Trump’s Trade War Senator Gallego Met with Trade Official and Local Candidates, Visited Canada’s National War Memorial OTTAWA — Today, Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) traveled to Ottawa, Canada on an official congressional trip to strengthen trade relations in the midst…
Sep 1, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Trump supporters · 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.
Newsletters
Standing up to Trump and Fighting for AI Oversight at the United Nations [Image] EMAIL RUBEN<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenGallego&crop=15546.50131771.7625561.8279223&report_id=EMAIL+RUBEN&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.gallego.senate.gov%2fshare-your-opinion%2f&redir_log=493262345529352> SUBSCRIBE<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenGallego&crop=15546.5013177…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: Donald Trump
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Kristi NoemSource
Press releases
Gallego, Colleagues Demand Hearing with Bill Putle Following Announced Cuts to Crucial FHFA Office of Inspector General Banking Democrats call for public forum to demand answers from Pulte on documented abuses of power WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) joined Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Jack Reed (D-RI), and their Democratic colleagues on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee,…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · target: Bill PulteSource
Press releases
WATCH: Gallego Calls Congressional Republicans “Cowards” for only now Condemning the Iran War NEW YORK – During his visit to the United Nations General Assembly, Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) joined MS NOW and slammed congressional Republicans for speaking out against the Iran War only after Speaker Mike Johnson sent members home until after the November midterm elections, denounced Trump’s imperialism in Venezuela t…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: Republicans, Steve WitkoffSource
Press releases
Gallego Statement on Failed CLARITY Act Cloture Vote WASHINGTON – Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) released the following statement after voting against cloture on the CLARITY Act: “All President Trump wants is for the Senate to give him time to crime, and I won’t support any piece of legislation that enables him. Just as Democrats and Republicans were making progress to address ethics concerns, Republican leadership en…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
All 2,218 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: 1,563 posts on X, 555 press releases, 55 Congressional Record speeches, 45 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Gallego talks about most: 26% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 9th of 45).
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 Gallego talks about. The bills Gallego sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gallego talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Gallego
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security429 statements
26%
21%
Health354 statements
21%
27%
Economics and Public Finance350 statements
21%
24%
Government Operations and Politics270 statements
16%
22%
International Affairs222 statements
13%
12%
Show the data
| Row | Gallego | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 26% | 21% |
| Health | 21% | 27% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 24% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 22% |
| International Affairs | 13% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gallego’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Democrats. 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 Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 26% | 21% | 10% | 7% |
| Health | 21% | 27% | 10% | 14% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 24% | 0% | 0% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 22% | 7% | 9% |
| International Affairs | 13% | 12% | 7% | 8% |
0.69
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 9th of 45.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gallego legislates on exactly the areas Gallego 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 Gallego sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Gallego sits at −0.77 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 97% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.79 to −0.75, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,374 donors and 5,416 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”.
−0.77
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.79 to −0.75. From 2,374 donors and 5,416 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gallego, 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 Gallego’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 Gallego sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Democrats45 · median −1.1
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gallego |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Democrats | 45 | −1.1 | 96% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 45% |
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 Gallego 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 Gallego.
Money
Gallego raised $4.8M in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 50% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 34% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.
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.
$4.8M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 3,431 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)41 squares$2.0M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)40 squares$1.9M
- PACs and other committees10 squares$503.2K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)9 squares$444.4K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $2.0M | 40.4% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $1.9M | 40.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $503.2K | 10.4% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $444.4K | 9.2% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.8M |
| 2022 cycle | $2.9M |
| 2024 cycle | $64.7M |
| 2026 cycle | $4.8M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 34% came from Arizona.
- Arizona$555.8K
- California$249.0K
- New York$143.0K
- District of Columbia$73.1K
- Virginia$64.1K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Gallego
Median
2026
50%
35%
2024
45%
35%
2022
43%
35%
2020
31%
35%
Show the data
| Row | Gallego | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 50% | 35% |
| 2024 cycle | 45% | 35% |
| 2022 cycle | 43% | 35% |
| 2020 cycle | 31% | 35% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Arizona | $555.8K |
| California | $249.0K |
| New York | $143.0K |
| District of Columbia | $73.1K |
| Virginia | $64.1K |
| Illinois | $53.3K |
| Florida | $48.0K |
| Maryland | $38.2K |
| Texas | $30.8K |
| Massachusetts | $30.1K |
| Connecticut | $27.0K |
| Washington | $25.7K |
| New Jersey | $21.5K |
| Pennsylvania | $17.1K |
| Oregon | $16.3K |
| Indiana | $15.9K |
| Colorado | $15.9K |
| Missouri | $14.3K |
| Utah | $12.0K |
| Michigan | $11.1K |
| North Carolina | $9,630 |
| Minnesota | $9,428 |
| Georgia | $9,231 |
| New Mexico | $8,917 |
| Wisconsin | $8,840 |
| Maine | $8,331 |
| New Hampshire | $7,108 |
| Ohio | $6,524 |
| Idaho | $5,870 |
| Kansas | $5,852 |
| Tennessee | $5,157 |
| Oklahoma | $4,372 |
| Vermont | $4,344 |
| Iowa | $4,140 |
| South Carolina | $3,335 |
| Kentucky | $3,226 |
| Louisiana | $2,618 |
| Nevada | $2,525 |
| Nebraska | $2,460 |
| Alaska | $2,368 |
| Alabama | $2,286 |
| Delaware | $2,020 |
| Rhode Island | $1,634 |
| Montana | $1,324 |
| Arkansas | $1,204 |
| North Dakota | $750 |
| Hawaii | $744 |
| Wyoming | $700 |
| South Dakota | $522 |
| Mississippi | $500 |
| West Virginia | No data |
3,431
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
34%
from Arizona
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 Arizona. 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 −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.9% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 40% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 46% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 5.5% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 2.6% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 1.1% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 1.8% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.9% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.3% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.5% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Gallego’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Gallego’s own score is −0.77.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$619.3K 1,793 donors
- RETIRED$200.1K 560 donors
- CEO$74.7K 29 donors
- CONSULTANT$66.4K 63 donors
- ATTORNEY$64.5K 88 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ABUNDANCE PAC$10.0K
- BRACEPAC$10.0K
- NOVO NORDISK INC. PAC (NOVO NORDISK PAC)$10.0K
- PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION PAC$10.0K
- THE REAL ESTATE ROUNDTABLE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (REALPAC)$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BLACKSTONE$31.5K 8 donors
- Y COMBINATOR$11.8K 5 donors
- EB5 UNITED$11.5K 3 donors
- AZ DC CONSULTING$8,000 3 donors
- BGR GROUP$8,000 7 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Gallego voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 91.7% of party-line votes and missed 13% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gallego voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 62 times.
915 roll calls Gallego could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Democrats. 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 Gallego voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
62
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 91.7%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 37th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gallego, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Gallego
Peers
Rank
Attendance
87%
97.0%
45th of 45
Party unity
91.7%
95.3%
37th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Gallego | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 87% | 97.0% |
| Party unity | 91.7% | 95.3% |
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 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Yea | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Nay | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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 Gallego most often
- Mark KellyD774 shared votes94%
- Mark WarnerD764 shared votes94%
- Jon OssoffD761 shared votes94%
- Elissa SlotkinD783 shared votes94%
- Martin HeinrichD769 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gallego least often
- Mike LeeR772 shared votes13%
- Rick ScottR797 shared votes13%
- Ron JohnsonR790 shared votes14%
- Ashley MoodyR781 shared votes14%
- Lindsey O. GrahamR690 shared votes14%
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
Gallego sponsored 63 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 415 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 22nd of 45).
The bills Gallego 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 | 63 | 62 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 415 | 412 | 63 | 6 | 5 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gallego sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gallego cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
13%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 22nd of 45.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gallego, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Richard Blumenthal93
- Mark Kelly93
- Cory Booker71
- Amy Klobuchar64
- Alex Padilla63
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 Gallego’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5636 | Supporting Focus in Schools Act | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Education | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 946 | A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Armed Forces and National Security | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 918 | A resolution establishing the Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (text: CR S5172-5174) Sep 29, 2026 |
| S.Res. 913 | A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026 |
| S. 5539 | Affordability is Access Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Health | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 24, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 90 times in 90 days. Gallego’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Gallego posted on Oct 23, 2026.
The lab crawls Gallego’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 Gallego posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 33
pages crawled
90changes 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
- XRepRubenGallego
- FacebookRepRubenGallego
- Instagramreprubengallego
- Emaildonotreply@gallego.senate.gov
Images Gallego posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Two men are talking inside a boxing gym. One wears boxing gloves and a blue shirt, while the other, seen from behind, wears a dark T-shirt and holds training mitts. They stand in a boxing ring. There is text on the shirt and a sign in the background.View post 
Three smiling men pose together in a boxing gym or ring. The men on either side wear championship belts, and the man on the left raises a fist. There is visible text on the belts and in the background.View post 
Three men talk and smile inside a boxing gym. Two are wearing black shirts, and a boxing ring and gym equipment are visible behind them. There is text on the wall and on the shirts.View post 
A group of seven people pose together inside a boxing gym, with two men displaying championship belts. There is text on some of the belts and clothing.View post 
Two men pose in a workshop, holding a framed folded American flag and a certificate. There is text on the 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 Gallego is most unusual among Senate Democrats, 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
- G000574
- Bioguide
- G000574
- FEC candidate ids
- H4AZ07043, S4AZ00139
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