Skip to content

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

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide G000597FEC H0NY02234

Portrait of Andrew Garbarino, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
35
votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 92.5%, 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 Garbarino voted with the majority of House Republicans; it is ranked among House Republicans. The count covers every roll call where Garbarino voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Garbarino sits at +0.53 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 97% of House Republicans. 20% of Garbarino’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.2 times the House Republican average of 8.9%.

The measures on which Garbarino 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

92.5%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 212th of 221 · 35 votes against the majority of House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.53

More liberal than 97% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Bipartisanship

20%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 14th of 221

Small donations, 2026

0.7%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 203rd of 220

Personal attacks

0.1%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 199th of 221

Extreme labels

0.3%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 203rd of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Garbarino says

Garbarino attacks opponents personally less than 89% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 696 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 199th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Garbarino’s 696 statements in the 119th Congress (434 posts on X, 99 newsletters, 93 Congressional Record speeches, 70 press releases) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Garbarino
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion502 statements
72%
68%
83rd of 221
Credit claiming331 statements
48%
37%
41st of 221
Bipartisanship137 statements
20%
9%
14th of 221
Policy criticism92 statements
13%
15%
127th of 221
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
199th of 221
Show the data
Garbarino's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowGarbarinoPeers
Policy discussion72%68%
Credit claiming48%37%
Bipartisanship20%9%
Policy criticism13%15%
Personal attacks0%2%
696

statements classified

434 posts on X, 99 newsletters, 93 Congressional Record speeches, 70 press releases.

posts on X: 434 (62.4%)posts on X 434newsletters: 99 (14.2%)Congressional Record speeches: 93 (13.4%)press releases: 70 (10.1%)
Show the data
Garbarino's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X434
newsletters99
Congressional Record speeches93
press releases70
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Garbarino used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 9.5% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at New York legislatures; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. New York legislatures1
  2. radical Left1
  3. Washington legislatures1
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: 332025-02: 242025-03: 252025-04: 182025-05: 242025-06: 272025-07: 212025-08: 122025-09: 262025-10: 272025-11: 602025-12: 362026-01: 232026-02: 362026-03: 422026-04: 282026-05: 292026-06: 332026-07: 862026-08: 192026-09: 392026-10: 28peak 86 · Jul ’26Personal attackspeak 3.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 28Policy criticismpeak 33.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 33.3% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-02: 33.3% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-03: 28.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-04: 33.3% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-05: 16.7% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-06: 18.5% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-07: 14.3% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-08: 8.3% of 12Policy criticism, 2025-09: 0.0% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-10: 33.3% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-11: 16.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-12: 5.6% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-01: 13.0% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-02: 16.7% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-03: 21.4% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-04: 7.1% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-05: 3.5% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-06: 0.0% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-07: 5.8% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-09: 0.0% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 28Policy discussionpeak 95.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 82.1%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 75.8% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-02: 95.8% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-03: 84.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-04: 61.1% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-05: 79.2% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-06: 74.1% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-07: 85.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-08: 83.3% of 12Policy discussion, 2025-09: 50.0% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-10: 63.0% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-11: 51.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-12: 75.0% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-01: 95.7% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-02: 83.3% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-03: 66.7% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.0% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-05: 69.0% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-06: 66.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-07: 61.6% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-08: 84.2% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.0% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-10: 82.1% of 28Bipartisanshippeak 60.0% · Mar ’25 · latest 10.7%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 27.3% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 33.3% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 60.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.1% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 20.8% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 18.5% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 23.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 16.7% of 12Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 26.9% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 14.8% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 16.7% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 13.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 13.9% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 19.1% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 17.2% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 27.3% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 17.4% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 15.8% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 23.1% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 10.7% of 28Credit claimingpeak 72.2% · Dec ’25 · latest 57.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 54.5% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-02: 66.7% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-03: 64.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-04: 44.4% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-05: 45.8% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-06: 59.3% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-07: 57.1% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-08: 66.7% of 12Credit claiming, 2025-09: 38.5% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-10: 48.1% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-11: 28.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-12: 72.2% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-01: 56.5% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-02: 50.0% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-03: 42.9% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-04: 39.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-05: 48.3% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-06: 48.5% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-07: 32.6% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-08: 57.9% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-09: 38.5% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-10: 57.1% of 28Extreme labelspeak 4.2% · May ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.2% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 28Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Garbarino, 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 ’25333.0%33.3%75.8%27.3%54.5%0.0%
Feb ’25240.0%33.3%95.8%33.3%66.7%0.0%
Mar ’25250.0%28.0%84.0%60.0%64.0%4.0%
Apr ’25180.0%33.3%61.1%11.1%44.4%0.0%
May ’25240.0%16.7%79.2%20.8%45.8%4.2%
Jun ’25270.0%18.5%74.1%18.5%59.3%0.0%
Jul ’25210.0%14.3%85.7%23.8%57.1%0.0%
Aug ’25120.0%8.3%83.3%16.7%66.7%0.0%
Sep ’25260.0%0.0%50.0%26.9%38.5%0.0%
Oct ’25270.0%33.3%63.0%14.8%48.1%0.0%
Nov ’25600.0%16.7%51.7%13.3%28.3%0.0%
Dec ’25360.0%5.6%75.0%16.7%72.2%0.0%
Jan ’26230.0%13.0%95.7%13.0%56.5%0.0%
Feb ’26360.0%16.7%83.3%13.9%50.0%0.0%
Mar ’26420.0%21.4%66.7%19.1%42.9%0.0%
Apr ’26280.0%7.1%75.0%3.6%39.3%0.0%
May ’26290.0%3.5%69.0%17.2%48.3%0.0%
Jun ’26330.0%0.0%66.7%27.3%48.5%0.0%
Jul ’26860.0%5.8%61.6%17.4%32.6%0.0%
Aug ’26190.0%0.0%84.2%15.8%57.9%0.0%
Sep ’26390.0%0.0%82.0%23.1%38.5%0.0%
Oct ’26280.0%0.0%82.1%10.7%57.1%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 Garbarino’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Update from Your Congressman Weekly Newsletter from the Office of Congressman Andrew Garbarino [https://w8ftbgbbb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=ec9b9840-79df-4e73-8578-2cb587898210&a=1135148111734&c=56f5e8ba-f0f5-11f0-a8f3-0242e7237647&ch=56f64e54-f0f5-11f0-a8f3-0242e7237647] If you were forwarded this emai…

Oct 25, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Emergency Management; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Immigration

Personal attacks

Update from Your Congressman Email from Rep. Garbarino Weekly Newsletter from the Office of Congressman Andrew Garbarino If you were forwarded this email, click here to subscribe An update from the office of Congressman Andrew Garbarino SPOTLIGHT Andrew Meets with President Trump to Address SALT Re…

Jan 12, 2025 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; Immigration; International Affairs

Extreme label

Garbarino, Tenney Reintroduce Local Law Enforcement Protection Act to Protect Qualified Immunity WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Congressman Andrew R. Garbarino (R-NY-02), alongside bill sponsor Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R-NY-24), announced the reintroduction of the Local Law Enforcement Protection Ac…

May 15, 2025 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Law; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “radical” aimed at radical Left · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Newsletters

    Update from Your Congressman Email from Rep. Garbarino Weekly Newsletter from the Office of Congressman Andrew Garbarino If you were forwarded this email, click here to subscribe An update from the office of Congressman Andrew Garbarino SPOTLIGHT Andrew Meets with President Trump to Address SALT Relief Yesterday, Andrew, along with other Representatives from New York, New Jersey, and California, met with President T…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Taxation · Transportation and Public Works · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · International Affairs

All 696 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: 434 posts on X, 99 newsletters, 93 Congressional Record speeches, 70 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Garbarino talks about most: 47% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 109th 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 Garbarino talks about. The bills Garbarino sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Garbarino talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%52%
Garbarino
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security237 statements
47%
24%
Health131 statements
26%
15%
Crime and Law Enforcement95 statements
19%
12%
Government Operations and Politics90 statements
18%
19%
Economics and Public Finance87 statements
17%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Garbarino talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowGarbarinoPeers
Armed Forces and National Security47%24%
Health26%15%
Crime and Law Enforcement19%12%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Garbarino’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 52%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 47% (House Republicans 24%)47%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 8%)6%HealthHealth, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 15%)26%Health, legislates on: 11% (House Republicans 11%)11%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 12%)19%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 9%)10%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 12%)13%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%
Show the data
Garbarino's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security47%24%6%8%
Health26%15%11%11%
Crime and Law Enforcement19%12%10%9%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%13%12%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%0%2%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 109th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Garbarino sits at +0.53 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 97% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.51 to +0.55, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,346 donors and 3,086 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”.

+0.53

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.51 to +0.55. From 2,346 donors and 3,086 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Garbarino +0.5House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Garbarino, 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 Garbarino’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 Garbarino sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Garbarino +0.5All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Garbarino's CSIP score of +0.53 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Garbarino
House Republicans221+1.03%
All House439+0.351%
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 Garbarino 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 Garbarino.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Garbarino raised $4.1M in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 35% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$4.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 573 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): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $845.0K (20.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.2M (54.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $978.3K (24.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)21 squares$845.0K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$5,878
  • PACs and other committees55 squares$2.2M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)24 squares$978.3K
Show the data
Sources of Garbarino's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$845.0K20.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$5,8780.1%
PACs and other committees$2.2M54.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$978.3K24.1%
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: $1.8M$1.8M20202022 cycle: $3.5M$3.5M20222024 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M20242026 cycle: $4.1M$4.1M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Garbarino's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.8M
2022 cycle$3.5M
2024 cycle$3.9M
2026 cycle$4.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 35% came from New York.

  1. New York$265.7K
  2. Texas$58.5K
  3. Virginia$52.8K
  4. California$50.8K
  5. Florida$47.8K

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%
Garbarino
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
9%
9%
2022
13%
9%
2020
29%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowGarbarinoMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle9%9%
2022 cycle13%9%
2020 cycle29%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $500AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $3,500VTNew Hampshire: $2,000NHWashington: $3,740WAIdaho: $2,500IDMontana: $7,500MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $3,000MNIllinois: $21.0KILWisconsin: $1,000WIMichigan: $2,500MINew York: $265.7KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $17.0KMAOregon: $1,000ORNevada: $14.7KNVWyoming: $1,500WYSouth Dakota: $500SDIowa: $2,500IAIndiana: $1,500INOhio: $3,500OHPennsylvania: $13.9KPANew Jersey: $20.6KNJConnecticut: $22.4KCTCalifornia: $50.8KCAUtah: $2,000UTColorado: $3,000CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $5,500MOKentucky: $500KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $52.8KVAMaryland: $22.0KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $10.5KAZNew Mexico: $500NMKansas: $26KSArkansas: $500ARTennessee: $7,500TNNorth Carolina: $18.0KNCSouth Carolina: $3,628SCDistrict of Columbia: $36.1KDCOklahoma: $6,000OKLouisiana: $7,500LAMississippi: $500MSAlabama: $1,500ALGeorgia: $3,500GAHawaii: $1,000HITexas: $58.5KTXFlorida: $47.8KFL
Show the data
Garbarino's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$265.7K
Texas$58.5K
Virginia$52.8K
California$50.8K
Florida$47.8K
District of Columbia$36.1K
Connecticut$22.4K
Maryland$22.0K
Illinois$21.0K
New Jersey$20.6K
North Carolina$18.0K
Massachusetts$17.0K
Nevada$14.7K
Pennsylvania$13.9K
Arizona$10.5K
Montana$7,500
Tennessee$7,500
Louisiana$7,500
Oklahoma$6,000
Missouri$5,500
Washington$3,740
South Carolina$3,628
Vermont$3,500
Ohio$3,500
Georgia$3,500
Minnesota$3,000
Colorado$3,000
Idaho$2,500
Michigan$2,500
Iowa$2,500
New Hampshire$2,000
Utah$2,000
Wyoming$1,500
Indiana$1,500
Alabama$1,500
Wisconsin$1,000
Oregon$1,000
Hawaii$1,000
Alaska$500
South Dakota$500
Kentucky$500
New Mexico$500
Arkansas$500
Mississippi$500
Kansas$26
MaineNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
573

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

35%

from New York

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 New York. 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: 0.5%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 6.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 14%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 8.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 14%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 33%33%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 20%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.8%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Garbarino's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 6.1% between −0.50 and −0.25, 14% between −0.25 and 0.00, 8.6% between 0.00 and +0.25, 14% between +0.25 and +0.50, 33% between +0.50 and +0.75, 20% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.5%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.256.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0014%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.258.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5014%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7533%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0020%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.8%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Garbarino’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Garbarino’s own score is +0.53.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$74.8K 46 donors
  2. CEO$69.8K 29 donors
  3. REAL ESTATE BROKER$65.5K 127 donors
  4. PARTNER$40.6K 14 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$34.2K 25 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. DEPOSITORY TRUST AND CLEARING CORPORATION PAC - DTCC PAC; THE$11.0K
  2. A NEW NATION PAC$10.0K
  3. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  4. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES$21.0K 15 donors
  2. ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ$20.0K 3 donors
  3. APOLLO$17.0K 3 donors
  4. BNY$13.6K 6 donors
  5. AMERICAN AIRLINES$11.5K 13 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Garbarino voted with the majority of House Republicans on 92.5% of party-line votes and missed 3.0% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Garbarino voted against the majority of House Republicans 35 times.

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

35

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 92.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 212th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Garbarino
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.0%
96.3%
152nd of 221
Party unity
92.5%
97.1%
212th of 221
Show the data
Garbarino's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowGarbarinoPeers
Attendance97.0%96.3%
Party unity92.5%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 Garbarino most often

  1. David JoyceR634 shared votes98%
  2. Thomas Kean Jr.R511 shared votes98%
  3. Nicolas LaLotaR642 shared votes97%
  4. Mike JohnsonR506 shared votes97%
  5. Zachary (Zach) NunnR624 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Garbarino least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD635 shared votes28%
  2. Delia RamirezD619 shared votes29%
  3. Adelita GrijalvaD379 shared votes29%
  4. Gregorio CasarD557 shared votes30%
  5. Summer LeeD651 shared votes30%
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

Garbarino sponsored 41 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 278 others. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 115th of 216).

The bills Garbarino 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

Sponsored41 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4141Sponsored, In committee: 4141Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored278 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 278278Cosponsored, In committee: 278278Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4040Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Garbarino sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4141200
Cosponsored2782784043
How to read the blocks

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

12%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 115th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler74
  2. Nicolas LaLota47
  3. Thomas Suozzi42
  4. Nicole Malliotakis39
  5. Claudia Tenney36
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 Garbarino’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10855To establish an East Coast Bivalve Research Task Force.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10844Mobile Stroke Units Improve Health Outcomes Act of 2026CosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 19, 2026
H.R. 10779To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1905 Route 112 in Medford, New York, as the "Gunnery Sergeant Ruben Santos Post Office Building".SponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 9, 2026
H.Res. 1622Expressing support for the preservation, protection, and maintenance of statues and monuments honoring Christopher Columbus as an enduring testament to the Nation's history, heritage, and identity.CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 9, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 52 times in 90 days. Garbarino’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Garbarino posted on Oct 21, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Garbarino posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A dark peer-support poster from the Suffolk County PBA, featuring a police badge with a thin blue line and a message encouraging officers to seek support. Text appears throughout the poster.
    A dark peer-support poster from the Suffolk County PBA, featuring a police badge with a thin blue line and a message encouraging officers to seek support. Text appears throughout the poster.View post
  • Four men wearing high-visibility safety vests stand and talk in a warehouse aisle. Shelving stocked with boxes and supplies and a ladder are visible behind them. There is some text on labels and equipment.
    Four men wearing high-visibility safety vests stand and talk in a warehouse aisle. Shelving stocked with boxes and supplies and a ladder are visible behind them. There is some text on labels and equipment.View post
  • Several people wearing high-visibility safety vests talk together inside a warehouse or industrial facility. Pallets, shelving, machinery, and structural columns are visible in the background. There is text on the vest worn by the person in the foreground.
    Several people wearing high-visibility safety vests talk together inside a warehouse or industrial facility. Pallets, shelving, machinery, and structural columns are visible in the background. There is text on the vest worn by the person in the foreground.View post
  • Three men are gathered around a product display in a bright showroom or store. A man wearing a high-visibility vest gestures toward a large flat panel and a cardboard box on a table, while two other men look on. Shelving, equipment, and large windows are visible in the background. There is text on signs and packaging.
    Three men are gathered around a product display in a bright showroom or store. A man wearing a high-visibility vest gestures toward a large flat panel and a cardboard box on a table, while two other men look on. Shelving, equipment, and large windows are visible in the background. There is text on signs and packaging.View post
  • A group of people wearing high-visibility safety vests stand and talk inside a large industrial warehouse. Shelving behind them holds large rolls of material, and there are metal pipes or bars stacked nearby. Some signage and lettering are visible.
    A group of people wearing high-visibility safety vests stand and talk inside a large industrial warehouse. Shelving behind them holds large rolls of material, and there are metal pipes or bars stacked nearby. Some signage and lettering are visible.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 Garbarino 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
G000597
Bioguide
G000597
FEC candidate ids
H0NY02234

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