Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Emergency Management · Source
50%
of statements claim credit, in the top 5% of Senate Republicans
50% of 1,133 statements claim credit (572 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 36%. Ranks 3rd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Hoeven’s press releases, posts on X and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 41% of the 27 bills Hoeven sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of Senate Republicans. Hoeven raised $523.2K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (median $3.2M).
The measures on which Hoeven sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Credit claiming
50%
Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 3rd of 52
Out of committee
41%
Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 4th of 51
Raised, 2026
$523.2K
Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 48th of 51
Personal attacks
0.1%
Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 48th of 52
Extreme labels
0.3%
Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 47th of 52
CSIP ideology
+0.84
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hoeven, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hoeven is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hoeven says
Hoeven attacks opponents personally less than 90% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 1,133 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 48th of 52.
An AI model reads each of Hoeven’s 1,133 statements in the 119th Congress (611 posts on X, 427 press releases, 95 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Hoeven
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion896 statements
79%
70%
8th of 52
Credit claiming572 statements
50%
36%
3rd of 52
Policy criticism157 statements
14%
17%
37th of 52
Bipartisanship148 statements
13%
13%
21st of 52
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
48th of 52
Show the data
| Row | Hoeven | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 79% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 50% | 36% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 17% |
| Bipartisanship | 13% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
1,133
statements classified
611 posts on X, 427 press releases, 95 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 611 |
| press releases | 427 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 95 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hoeven; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hoeven does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hoeven used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 9.0% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at Biden; peers 2.9%.
- “radical”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Biden1
- Biden administration1
- environmental agenda1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 89 | 0.0% | 15.7% | 77.5% | 22.5% | 44.9% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 83 | 0.0% | 15.7% | 79.5% | 16.9% | 56.6% | 2.4% |
| Mar ’25 | 59 | 0.0% | 10.2% | 81.4% | 10.2% | 30.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 56 | 0.0% | 19.6% | 71.4% | 14.3% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 63 | 0.0% | 15.9% | 84.1% | 11.1% | 50.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 43 | 0.0% | 11.6% | 67.4% | 7.0% | 34.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 85.7% | 0.0% | 54.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 47 | 0.0% | 12.8% | 91.5% | 8.5% | 78.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 34 | 0.0% | 8.8% | 64.7% | 23.5% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 51 | 2.0% | 19.6% | 60.8% | 13.7% | 33.3% | 2.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 46 | 0.0% | 15.2% | 76.1% | 17.4% | 52.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 51 | 0.0% | 7.8% | 76.5% | 7.8% | 52.9% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 10.7% | 85.7% | 3.6% | 46.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 52 | 0.0% | 3.9% | 76.9% | 3.9% | 51.9% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 53 | 0.0% | 15.1% | 75.5% | 18.9% | 39.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 60 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 85.0% | 13.3% | 60.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 56 | 0.0% | 16.1% | 91.1% | 3.6% | 67.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 10.9% | 67.4% | 21.7% | 43.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 11.4% | 70.5% | 13.6% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 47 | 0.0% | 14.9% | 91.5% | 12.8% | 53.2% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 48 | 0.0% | 29.2% | 87.5% | 22.9% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 2.9% | 91.4% | 8.6% | 77.1% | 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 Hoeven’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today. Today marks the 23rd day of the government shutdown--the 23rd day-- now the second longest in our Nation's history. Yet, despite the mounting consequences, our colleagues across the aisle continue to block a clean, nonpartisan continuing resol…
Oct 23, 2025 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Agriculture and Food; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Extreme label
Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution that Senator Cramer and I introduced to overturn the Bureau of Land Management resource management plan for North Dakota. This flawed plan, finalized during the closing days of the Biden administration, undermines BLM's multiple-use mandate and rest…
Oct 8, 2025 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Energy; Environmental Protection; Economics and Public Finance; Education; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Biden administration · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Congressional Record
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today. Today marks the 23rd day of the government shutdown--the 23rd day-- now the second longest in our Nation's history. Yet, despite the mounting consequences, our colleagues across the aisle continue to block a clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution--one that would simply keep the government open and allow us to continue our work on the appropriations process. T…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Agriculture and Food · Transportation and Public WorksSource
All 1,133 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: 611 posts on X, 427 press releases, 95 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Hoeven talks about most: 30% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 24th of 52).
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 Hoeven talks about. The bills Hoeven sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hoeven talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Hoeven
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security265 statements
30%
25%
Agriculture and Food261 statements
29%
9%
Economics and Public Finance165 statements
18%
17%
Energy165 statements
18%
10%
Science, Technology, Communications117 statements
13%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Hoeven | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 30% | 25% |
| Agriculture and Food | 29% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 17% |
| Energy | 18% | 10% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 13% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hoeven’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 30% | 25% | 11% | 8% |
| Agriculture and Food | 29% | 9% | 10% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 17% | 1% | 1% |
| Energy | 18% | 10% | 9% | 2% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 13% | 9% | 1% | 3% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 24th of 52.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hoeven legislates on exactly the areas Hoeven 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 Hoeven sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hoeven sits at +0.84 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 68% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.83 to +0.86, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,169 donors and 4,940 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”.
+0.84
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.83 to +0.86. From 2,169 donors and 4,940 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hoeven, 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 Hoeven’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 Hoeven sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hoeven |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 31% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 64% |
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 Hoeven 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 Hoeven.
Money
Hoeven raised $523.2K in the 2026 cycle, 16% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 1.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 34% of itemized individual money came from North Dakota.
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.
$523.2K
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 135 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)45 squares$237.4K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$3,596
- PACs and other committees40 squares$207.1K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)14 squares$75.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $237.4K | 45.4% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $3,596 | 0.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $207.1K | 39.6% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $75.1K | 14.4% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $745.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $3.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $530.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $523.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 34% came from North Dakota.
- North Dakota$71.8K
- California$44.6K
- Virginia$28.3K
- Texas$26.1K
- Maryland$6,500
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Hoeven
Median
2026
1%
17%
2024
12%
17%
2022
6%
17%
2020
22%
17%
Show the data
| Row | Hoeven | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 1% | 17% |
| 2024 cycle | 12% | 17% |
| 2022 cycle | 6% | 17% |
| 2020 cycle | 22% | 17% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| North Dakota | $71.8K |
| California | $44.6K |
| Virginia | $28.3K |
| Texas | $26.1K |
| Maryland | $6,500 |
| District of Columbia | $4,750 |
| Illinois | $4,000 |
| Kentucky | $3,500 |
| Oklahoma | $3,500 |
| Minnesota | $3,400 |
| South Carolina | $3,000 |
| Arizona | $2,500 |
| Massachusetts | $1,000 |
| South Dakota | $1,000 |
| Iowa | $1,000 |
| Ohio | $1,000 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,000 |
| Utah | $1,000 |
| North Carolina | $1,000 |
| Florida | $1,000 |
| Oregon | $500 |
| Colorado | $500 |
| Nebraska | $500 |
| Tennessee | $500 |
| Mississippi | $500 |
| Alabama | $500 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
135
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
34%
from North Dakota
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 North Dakota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.5% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.6% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 17% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 7.8% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 4.9% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 9.4% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 60% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Hoeven’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Hoeven’s own score is +0.84.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$18.2K 7 donors
- PRESIDENT$17.3K 10 donors
- CEO$11.9K 12 donors
- CROP INSURANCE AGENT$8,750 5 donors
- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR$7,900 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS OF AMERICA, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (INSURPAC)$12.0K
- CONTINUING AMERICA'S STRENGTH AND SECURITY PAC$10.0K
- NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL PORK PAC$10.0K
- MINN-DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE SUGAR PAC (MDSPAC)$8,400
- AMERICAN PISTACHIO GROWERS PISTACHIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$8,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- GENERAL ATOMICS$34.0K 5 donors
- AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION$5,300 3 donors
- LOCKHEED MARTIN$5,000 5 donors
- CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$4,100 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hoeven voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 1.0% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hoeven voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 4 times.
915 roll calls Hoeven could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Hoeven voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
4
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.7%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 19th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hoeven, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hoeven
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.0%
97.1%
13th of 53
Party unity
99.7%
98.4%
19th of 53
Show the data
| Row | Hoeven | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.0% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 99.7% | 98.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hoeven most often
- Tim ScottR882 shared votes100%
- Dave McCormickR880 shared votes100%
- Kevin CramerR875 shared votes100%
- James LankfordR900 shared votes99%
- Mike CrapoR895 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hoeven least often
- Ed MarkeyD899 shared votes3.1%
- Elizabeth WarrenD892 shared votes3.4%
- Bernie SandersI843 shared votes3.4%
- Christopher MurphyD881 shared votes3.9%
- Chris Van HollenD892 shared votes4.6%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Hoeven sponsored 27 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 227 others. 41% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 4th of 51).
The bills Hoeven sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 27 | 27 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 227 | 222 | 68 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hoeven sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hoeven cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
41%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 4th of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hoeven, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Kevin Cramer68
- Steve Daines46
- Pete Ricketts44
- James Risch39
- Marsha Blackburn37
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 Hoeven’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S.Res. 934 | A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 945 | A resolution designating November 7, 2026, as "National Bison Day". | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Environmental Protection | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 922 | A resolution designating October 26, 2026, as the "Day of the Deployed." | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Armed Forces and National Security | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026 |
| S.Res. 923 | A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week". | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Agriculture and Food | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026 |
| S.Res. 912 | A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 38 times in 90 days. Hoeven’s official site had 24 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hoeven posted on Oct 24, 2026.
The lab crawls Hoeven’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 Hoeven posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 24
pages crawled
38changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- XSenJohnHoeven
- FacebookSenatorJohnHoeven
- Instagramsenjohnhoeven
- YouTubesenatorjohnhoevennd
Images Hoeven posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of adults and two girls stand talking in a hotel or conference hallway. One man holds a cup, and another holds a cap. Restroom signs are visible on the doors behind them.View post 
Two men talk at an indoor trade-show or conference booth. One gestures while wearing a cap and blue shirt; the other listens with his hands in his pockets. Promotional banners, tables, and chairs are visible, with text on the banners and display materials.View post 
A man in a gray suit speaks behind a lectern with a microphone, gesturing with both hands. A large agricultural organization banner hangs behind him, and there is text on the banner and lectern.View post 
Several men talk outdoors at an event near a table, parked vehicles, and flags. Two men wear camouflage clothing, while another gestures as he speaks to a man in a dark jacket. There is text visible on signs and flags.View post 
A man speaks at a wooden podium into a microphone beneath a large outdoor canopy, with several people seated around him and parked vehicles visible in the background. The podium has a picture and text on its front.View post
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Hoeven is most unusual among Senate 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
- H001061
- Bioguide
- H001061
- FEC candidate ids
- S0ND00093
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