Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Michigan’s 4th district

Serving since Jan 5, 2011119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H001058FEC H0MI02094

Portrait of Bill Huizenga, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.7×
the House Republican rate of bipartisan language

24% of 568 statements use bipartisan language (136 statements); the average for House Republicans is 8.9%. Ranks 5th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Huizenga’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, newsletters and press releases and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Huizenga raised $5.6M in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of House Republicans (median $2.2M). 22% of the 36 bills Huizenga sponsored got out of committee, in the top half of House Republicans.

The measures on which Huizenga 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.

Bipartisanship

24%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 5th of 221

Raised, 2026

$5.6M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 35th of 220

Out of committee

22%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 55th of 216

Extreme labels

1.2%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 158th of 221

Policy discussion

64%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 157th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.99

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Huizenga says

Huizenga stresses bipartisanship more than 97% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 24% of 568 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 5th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Huizenga’s 568 statements in the 119th Congress (396 posts on X, 83 press releases, 46 Congressional Record speeches, 43 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%
Huizenga
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion363 statements
64%
68%
157th of 221
Credit claiming228 statements
40%
37%
91st of 221
Bipartisanship136 statements
24%
9%
5th of 221
Policy criticism98 statements
17%
15%
68th of 221
Personal attacks6 statements
1%
2%
119th of 221
Show the data
Huizenga's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHuizengaPeers
Policy discussion64%68%
Credit claiming40%37%
Bipartisanship24%9%
Policy criticism17%15%
Personal attacks1%2%
568

statements classified

396 posts on X, 83 press releases, 46 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters.

posts on X: 396 (69.7%)posts on X 396press releases: 83 (14.6%)Congressional Record speeches: 46 (8.1%)newsletters: 43 (7.6%)
Show the data
Huizenga's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X396
press releases83
Congressional Record speeches46
newsletters43
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Huizenga used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, below the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at far-left organizations; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”4
  2. “communist”2
  3. “far left”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. far-left organizations1
  2. ideological projects1
  3. Radical Islamists1
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: 292025-02: 342025-03: 292025-04: 442025-05: 692025-06: 432025-07: 312025-08: 82025-09: 172025-10: 252025-11: 142025-12: 312026-01: 442026-02: 172026-03: 252026-04: 152026-05: 182026-06: 182026-07: 202026-08: 152026-09: 142026-10: 8peak 69 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 5.9% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.3% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.3% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: 5.9% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-06: 5.6% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 40.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 14.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 13.8% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-02: 23.5% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-03: 13.8% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-04: 20.4% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-05: 11.6% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-06: 16.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-07: 3.2% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: 17.6% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-10: 32.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-11: 28.6% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-12: 6.5% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-01: 18.2% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-02: 23.5% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-03: 20.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-05: 5.6% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-06: 22.2% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-07: 40.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-08: 13.3% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-09: 14.3% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 93.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 71.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 55.2% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-02: 70.6% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-03: 65.5% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-04: 56.8% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-05: 58.0% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-06: 65.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-07: 61.3% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: 64.7% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-10: 68.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-11: 57.1% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-12: 67.7% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-01: 65.9% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-02: 70.6% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-03: 52.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-04: 60.0% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-05: 55.6% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-06: 61.1% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-07: 70.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-08: 93.3% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-09: 71.4% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 40.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 7.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 27.6% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 35.3% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 37.9% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 15.9% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 21.7% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.7% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 19.4% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 23.5% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 32.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 14.3% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 29.0% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 9.1% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 35.3% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 24.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 33.3% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 33.3% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 38.9% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 40.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 26.7% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 7.1% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 58.8% · Sep ’25 · latest 35.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 44.8% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-02: 32.4% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-03: 41.4% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-04: 34.1% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-05: 37.7% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-06: 37.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-07: 51.6% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: 58.8% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-10: 52.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-11: 28.6% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-12: 45.2% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-01: 25.0% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-02: 41.2% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-03: 24.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-04: 40.0% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-05: 44.4% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-06: 55.6% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-07: 55.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-08: 33.3% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-09: 35.7% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 7.1% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-11: 7.1% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-02: 5.9% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-03: 4.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Huizenga, 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 ’25290.0%13.8%55.2%27.6%44.8%0.0%
Feb ’25342.9%23.5%70.6%35.3%32.4%5.9%
Mar ’25290.0%13.8%65.5%37.9%41.4%0.0%
Apr ’25442.3%20.4%56.8%15.9%34.1%0.0%
May ’25691.5%11.6%58.0%21.7%37.7%2.9%
Jun ’25432.3%16.3%65.1%4.7%37.2%0.0%
Jul ’25310.0%3.2%61.3%19.4%51.6%0.0%
Aug ’258— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’25175.9%17.6%64.7%23.5%58.8%0.0%
Oct ’25250.0%32.0%68.0%32.0%52.0%0.0%
Nov ’25140.0%28.6%57.1%14.3%28.6%7.1%
Dec ’25310.0%6.5%67.7%29.0%45.2%0.0%
Jan ’26440.0%18.2%65.9%9.1%25.0%0.0%
Feb ’26170.0%23.5%70.6%35.3%41.2%5.9%
Mar ’26250.0%20.0%52.0%24.0%24.0%4.0%
Apr ’26150.0%0.0%60.0%33.3%40.0%0.0%
May ’26180.0%5.6%55.6%33.3%44.4%0.0%
Jun ’26185.6%22.2%61.1%38.9%55.6%0.0%
Jul ’26200.0%40.0%70.0%40.0%55.0%0.0%
Aug ’26150.0%13.3%93.3%26.7%33.3%0.0%
Sep ’26140.0%14.3%71.4%7.1%35.7%0.0%
Oct ’268— (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%. 2 months are hatched here.

In Huizenga’s words

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

Personal attacks

Huizenga Introduces Deport the Terrorists Act Today, Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-MI) announced the introduction of the Deport the Terrorists Act. This landmark legislation would overhaul deportation proceedings for naturalized American citizens who are convicted of financing, materially supporting…

Jun 2, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Ayman Ghazali, Mohamed Jalloh, Khalid Ouazzani, Salah Ahmed · Source

Bipartisanship

The Huizenga Huddle: October 23, 2026 Huizenga Huddle October 23, 2026 Share this email: [Share on Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://huizenga.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=LZD7UYKJCYH4W6ZS2DT3LB3DZQ&t=The+Huizenga+Huddle%3a+October+23%2c+2026> [Share on Twitter] <https://hu…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education; Environmental Protection; Government Operations and Politics; International Affairs

Extreme label

The Huizenga Huddle: March 7, 2026 Huizenga Huddle March 7, 2026 Share this email: [Share on Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://huizenga.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=BHQA3XWCHKQBAQKKZ2EGVPXNIU&t=The+Huizenga+Huddle%3a+March+7%2c+2026> [Share on Twitter] <https://huizenga.ho…

Mar 7, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Environmental Protection; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Water Resources Development; extreme label “radical” aimed at ideological projects

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

    Huizenga Introduces Deport the Terrorists Act Today, Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-MI) announced the introduction of the Deport the Terrorists Act. This landmark legislation would overhaul deportation proceedings for naturalized American citizens who are convicted of financing, materially supporting, or outright committing acts of terror. “American citizenship is one of our nation's greatest privileges,” said Congres…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Ayman Ghazali, Mohamed Jalloh, Khalid Ouazzani, Salah AhmedSource

  2. Newsletters

    The Huizenga Huddle: September 24, 2025 | | Remembering Charlie Kirk On September 10th, the assassination of Charlie Kirk sent shock waves across America and marked a very dark moment in our nation's history. Charlie was a gifted speaker whose faith, values, and patriotic passion spoke to a generation of younger Americans. He inspired and helped many, including my own children, stand up for their own beliefs. Throug…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Immigration · Education · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Labor and Employment · Health · Agriculture and Food · target: Chuck Schumer

  3. Newsletters

    The Huizenga Huddle: June 17, 2025 | | Turmoil in the Middle East Yesterday, I joined Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business to discuss the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. My position is clear. The United States needs to protect American troops, our allies, and our interests. A nuclear Iran would lead to devastation throughout the entire Gulf Region and beyond. Our nation must continue to stand with Israel while…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Commerce · Taxation · Health · Immigration · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Labor and Employment · Agriculture and Food · Finance and Financial Sector · target: Joe Biden

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: GovWhitmerSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: Gary GenslerSource

All 568 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: 396 posts on X, 83 press releases, 46 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Huizenga talks about most: 30% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 128th 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 Huizenga talks about. The bills Huizenga sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Huizenga talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Huizenga
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security109 statements
30%
24%
International Affairs100 statements
28%
9%
Economics and Public Finance94 statements
26%
19%
Commerce66 statements
18%
9%
Government Operations and Politics58 statements
16%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Huizenga talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHuizengaPeers
Armed Forces and National Security30%24%
International Affairs28%9%
Economics and Public Finance26%19%
Commerce18%9%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Huizenga’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 onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 30% (House Republicans 24%)30%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 8%)5%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 28% (House Republicans 9%)28%International Affairs, legislates on: 22% (House Republicans 6%)22%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 19%)26%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 2%)4%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 9%)18%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 19%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 12%)9%
Show the data
Huizenga'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 Security30%24%5%8%
International Affairs28%9%22%6%
Economics and Public Finance26%19%4%2%
Commerce18%9%1%2%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%9%12%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 128th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Huizenga sits at +0.99 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 50% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.98 to +1.01, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,528 donors and 7,404 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”.

+0.99

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.98 to +1.01. From 2,528 donors and 7,404 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Huizenga, 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 Huizenga’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 Huizenga sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Huizenga +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Huizenga's CSIP score of +0.99 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Huizenga
House Republicans221+1.049%
All House439+0.374%
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 Huizenga 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 Huizenga.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Huizenga raised $5.6M in the 2026 cycle, 2.6 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 11% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 62% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.

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
$5.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 781 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): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $254.0K (4.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $254.0K (4.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $254.0K (4.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $254.0K (4.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $254.0K (4.6%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (37.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (21.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$2.0M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)5 squares$254.0K
  • PACs and other committees38 squares$2.1M
  • Party committees$5,900
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)21 squares$1.2M
Show the data
Sources of Huizenga's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.0M36.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$254.0K4.6%
PACs and other committees$2.1M37.7%
Party committees$5,9000.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.2M21.4%
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: $2.2M$2.2M20202022 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20222024 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20242026 cycle: $5.6M$5.6M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Huizenga's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.2M
2022 cycle$3.1M
2024 cycle$3.1M
2026 cycle$5.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 62% came from Michigan.

  1. Michigan$1.1M
  2. Florida$133.3K
  3. California$91.5K
  4. Virginia$82.5K
  5. Texas$49.9K

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%
Huizenga
Median
2026
11%
9%
2024
3%
9%
2022
3%
9%
2020
6%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHuizengaMedian
2026 cycle11%9%
2024 cycle3%9%
2022 cycle3%9%
2020 cycle6%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $20MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $536WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $115MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $227MNIllinois: $3,610ILWisconsin: $11.2KWIMichigan: $1.1MMINew York: $2,347NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $29.9KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $28.0KNVWyoming: $26WYSouth Dakota: $100SDIowa: $5,052IAIndiana: $1,087INOhio: $13.0KOHPennsylvania: $2,334PANew Jersey: $8,599NJConnecticut: $32.1KCTCalifornia: $91.5KCAUtah: $35.8KUTColorado: $12.0KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $7,022MOKentucky: $46KYWest Virginia: $24.0KWVVirginia: $82.5KVAMaryland: $11.1KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,909AZNew Mexico: $309NMKansas: $168KSArkansas: $7,292ARTennessee: $3,501TNNorth Carolina: $850NCSouth Carolina: $2,662SCDistrict of Columbia: $34.3KDCOklahoma: $975OKLouisiana: $1,820LAMississippi: $1,135MSAlabama: $42ALGeorgia: $14.2KGAHawaii: $159HITexas: $49.9KTXFlorida: $133.3KFL
Show the data
Huizenga's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Michigan$1.1M
Florida$133.3K
California$91.5K
Virginia$82.5K
Texas$49.9K
Utah$35.8K
District of Columbia$34.3K
Connecticut$32.1K
Massachusetts$29.9K
Nevada$28.0K
West Virginia$24.0K
Georgia$14.2K
Ohio$13.0K
Colorado$12.0K
Wisconsin$11.2K
Maryland$11.1K
New Jersey$8,599
Arkansas$7,292
Missouri$7,022
Iowa$5,052
Illinois$3,610
Tennessee$3,501
South Carolina$2,662
New York$2,347
Pennsylvania$2,334
Arizona$1,909
Louisiana$1,820
Mississippi$1,135
Indiana$1,087
Oklahoma$975
North Carolina$850
Washington$536
New Mexico$309
Minnesota$227
Kansas$168
Hawaii$159
Montana$115
South Dakota$100
Kentucky$46
Alabama$42
Wyoming$26
Maine$20
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NebraskaNo data
DelawareNo data
781

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

62%

from Michigan

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 Michigan. 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: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 12%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 71%71%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 6.5%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Huizenga's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 12% between +0.50 and +0.75, 71% between +0.75 and +1.00, 6.5% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7512%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0071%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.256.5%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Huizenga’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Huizenga’s own score is +0.99.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$403.5K 271 donors
  2. CEO$173.9K 50 donors
  3. EXECUTIVE$99.5K 17 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$70.7K 26 donors
  5. HOMEMAKER$62.0K 14 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MORPAC)$28.5K
  2. 31 DAYS PAC$10.0K
  3. A NEW NATION PAC$10.0K
  4. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
  5. ALLY FINANCIAL INC. ADVOCACY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CIENA$24.5K 3 donors
  2. ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ$22.3K 3 donors
  3. ANTHROPIC$21.0K 3 donors
  4. PFS$17.0K 3 donors
  5. CIENA HEALTHCARE$10.5K 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Huizenga voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed 2.1% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Huizenga voted against the majority of House Republicans 12 times.

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

12

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.8%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 126th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Huizenga
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.9%
96.3%
118th of 221
Party unity
97.8%
97.1%
126th of 221
Show the data
Huizenga's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHuizengaPeers
Attendance97.9%96.3%
Party unity97.8%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 Huizenga most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR511 shared votes100%
  2. John MoolenaarR658 shared votes99%
  3. Dale StrongR644 shared votes99%
  4. Cliff BentzR659 shared votes99%
  5. Randy FeenstraR649 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Huizenga least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD386 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD647 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD631 shared votes25%
  4. Gregorio CasarD563 shared votes25%
  5. Dan GoldmanD576 shared votes26%
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

Huizenga sponsored 36 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 226 others. 22% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 55th of 216).

The bills Huizenga 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

Sponsored36 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3636Sponsored, In committee: 3636Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored226 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 226226Cosponsored, In committee: 226226Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4040Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Huizenga sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3636200
Cosponsored2262264043
How to read the blocks

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

22%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 55th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler40
  2. Jack Bergman25
  3. John Moolenaar24
  4. Daniel Meuser23
  5. Debbie Dingell20
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 Huizenga’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. 10819To establish a United States-India Interparliamentary Group.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10675BUILD with Allies Act of 2026SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10639Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act of 2026CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeEnvironmental ProtectionReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10327Cost Estimates Improvement ActCosponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeEconomics and Public FinanceReferred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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 10, 2026
H.Res. 1511Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' familiesCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 3, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 38 times in 90 days. Huizenga’s official site had 42 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Huizenga posted on Oct 15, 2026.

The lab crawls Huizenga’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 Huizenga 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 Huizenga posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A formal letter on a white page, with a congressional letterhead, date, recipient details, and several paragraphs of text. The letter discusses Myanmar's UN representation and the Burmese military junta.
    A formal letter on a white page, with a congressional letterhead, date, recipient details, and several paragraphs of text. The letter discusses Myanmar's UN representation and the Burmese military junta.View post
  • A cropped page from a formal letter, with a short closing paragraph and six handwritten signatures above printed names and congressional titles. There is substantial blank space below.
    A cropped page from a formal letter, with a short closing paragraph and six handwritten signatures above printed names and congressional titles. There is substantial blank space below.View post
  • A blue political-style poster featuring a large Israeli flag and Star of David, with a central white-bordered box containing bold text and a small logo near the bottom.
    A blue political-style poster featuring a large Israeli flag and Star of David, with a central white-bordered box containing bold text and a small logo near the bottom.View post
  • A commemorative poster featuring a historical painting of men gathered in a room, with prominent decorative lettering and a small logo at the bottom.
    A commemorative poster featuring a historical painting of men gathered in a room, with prominent decorative lettering and a small logo at the bottom.View post
  • A black-and-white memorial poster featuring a man in a suit raising one fist. A thin white border frames the poster, with memorial wording near the bottom and a small logo in the lower-right corner.
    A black-and-white memorial poster featuring a man in a suit raising one fist. A thin white border frames the poster, with memorial wording near the bottom and a small logo in the lower-right corner.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 Huizenga 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
H001058
Bioguide
H001058
FEC candidate ids
H0MI02094

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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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