Skip to content

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

Serving since Jan 6, 2015119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H001072FEC H4AR02141

Portrait of J. Hill, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.3×
the House Republican rate of bipartisan language

21% of 1,094 statements use bipartisan language (226 statements); the average for House Republicans is 8.9%. Ranks 11th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Hill’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters 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. 42% of the 33 bills Hill sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of House Republicans. 60% of Hill’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 68%).

The measures on which Hill 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

21%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 11th of 221

Out of committee

42%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 15th of 216

Policy discussion

60%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 182nd of 221

Small donations, 2026

1.7%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 177th of 220

Extreme labels

0.7%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 181st of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.83

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Hill says

Hill attacks opponents personally less than 64% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.5% of 1,094 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 144th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Hill’s 1,094 statements in the 119th Congress (509 posts on X, 410 Congressional Record speeches, 91 newsletters, 84 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%
Hill
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion654 statements
60%
68%
182nd of 221
Credit claiming386 statements
35%
37%
130th of 221
Bipartisanship226 statements
21%
9%
11th of 221
Policy criticism168 statements
15%
15%
94th of 221
Personal attacks6 statements
1%
2%
144th of 221
Show the data
Hill's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHillPeers
Policy discussion60%68%
Credit claiming35%37%
Bipartisanship21%9%
Policy criticism15%15%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,094

statements classified

509 posts on X, 410 Congressional Record speeches, 91 newsletters, 84 press releases.

posts on X: 509 (46.5%)posts on X 509Congressional Record speeches: 410 (37.5%)Congressional Record speeches 410newsletters: 91 (8.3%)press releases: 84 (7.7%)
Show the data
Hill's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X509
Congressional Record speeches410
newsletters91
press releases84
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Hill used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, 24% of the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at socialism; peers 3.0%.

  1. “communist”5
  2. “radical”1
  3. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. socialism2
  2. Beijing1
  3. Castro1
  4. DEI programs1
  5. gender ideology1
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: 472025-02: 652025-03: 492025-04: 652025-05: 442025-06: 402025-07: 1002025-08: 282025-09: 482025-10: 372025-11: 462025-12: 222026-01: 412026-02: 872026-03: 322026-04: 192026-05: 1032026-06: 602026-07: 752026-08: 302026-09: 372026-10: 19peak 103 · May ’26Personal attackspeak 2.4% · Jan ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.1% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.5% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.1% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.4% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 103Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 19Policy criticismpeak 54.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 10.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 19.1% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-02: 26.2% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-03: 6.1% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-04: 16.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-05: 2.3% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-06: 17.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-07: 11.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-09: 12.5% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-10: 54.0% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-11: 19.6% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-12: 22.7% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-01: 19.5% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-02: 13.8% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-03: 15.6% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-04: 15.8% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-05: 14.6% of 103Policy criticism, 2026-06: 13.3% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-07: 9.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-08: 10.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.4% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.5% of 19Policy discussionpeak 94.7% · Oct ’26 · latest 94.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 63.8% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-02: 55.4% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-03: 59.2% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-04: 53.8% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-05: 54.5% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-06: 67.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-07: 53.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2025-08: 64.3% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-09: 64.6% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-10: 81.1% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-11: 54.4% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-12: 77.3% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-01: 68.3% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-02: 51.7% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-03: 62.5% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-04: 84.2% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-05: 47.6% of 103Policy discussion, 2026-06: 46.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-07: 57.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-08: 80.0% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-09: 75.7% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-10: 94.7% of 19Bipartisanshippeak 40.9% · Dec ’25 · latest 21.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 21.3% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 27.7% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 8.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 12.3% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 18.2% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 20.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 13.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 18.8% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 18.9% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 15.2% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 40.9% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 21.9% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 27.6% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 21.9% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 21.1% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 30.1% of 103Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 28.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 25.3% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 10.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 16.2% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 21.1% of 19Credit claimingpeak 54.5% · Dec ’25 · latest 52.6%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 48.9% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-02: 47.7% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-03: 40.8% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-04: 21.5% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-05: 45.5% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-06: 30.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-07: 18.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2025-08: 21.4% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-09: 47.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-10: 24.3% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-11: 34.8% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-12: 54.5% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-01: 39.0% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-02: 34.5% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-03: 40.6% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-04: 42.1% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-05: 30.1% of 103Credit claiming, 2026-06: 33.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-07: 36.0% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-08: 43.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-09: 37.8% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-10: 52.6% of 19Extreme labelspeak 10.9% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-11: 10.9% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.3% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 103Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.3% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 19Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Hill, 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 ’25472.1%19.1%63.8%21.3%48.9%0.0%
Feb ’25651.5%26.2%55.4%27.7%47.7%0.0%
Mar ’25492.0%6.1%59.2%8.2%40.8%0.0%
Apr ’25650.0%16.9%53.8%12.3%21.5%0.0%
May ’25440.0%2.3%54.5%18.2%45.5%0.0%
Jun ’25400.0%17.5%67.5%20.0%30.0%0.0%
Jul ’251001.0%11.0%53.0%13.0%18.0%0.0%
Aug ’25280.0%14.3%64.3%3.6%21.4%0.0%
Sep ’25482.1%12.5%64.6%18.8%47.9%0.0%
Oct ’25370.0%54.0%81.1%18.9%24.3%0.0%
Nov ’25460.0%19.6%54.4%15.2%34.8%10.9%
Dec ’25220.0%22.7%77.3%40.9%54.5%0.0%
Jan ’26412.4%19.5%68.3%21.9%39.0%0.0%
Feb ’26870.0%13.8%51.7%27.6%34.5%2.3%
Mar ’26320.0%15.6%62.5%21.9%40.6%0.0%
Apr ’26190.0%15.8%84.2%21.1%42.1%0.0%
May ’261030.0%14.6%47.6%30.1%30.1%0.0%
Jun ’26600.0%13.3%46.7%28.3%33.3%0.0%
Jul ’26750.0%9.3%57.3%25.3%36.0%1.3%
Aug ’26300.0%10.0%80.0%10.0%43.3%0.0%
Sep ’26370.0%5.4%75.7%16.2%37.8%0.0%
Oct ’26190.0%10.5%94.7%21.1%52.6%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 Hill’s words

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

Bipartisanship

District Update: New Investments, More Jobs, and Stronger Communities Friends, Already, more than 11,000 Arkansans from 48 of our state's 75 counties work at the Port of Little Rock, a remarkable example of its economic impact well beyond our capital city. I took a trip out to the Port last Friday…

Oct 25, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Water Resources Development; Health; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Finance and Financial Sector; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Public Lands and Natural Resources

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on the floor with my colleague from Arkansas, our distinguished chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and our colleagues to give the American people some perspective on the important action that President Trump has taken that reasserts Americ…

Jan 12, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Immigration · Source

Extreme label

RELEASE: HILL VOTES TO STRENGTHEN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ABROAD Today, Rep. French Hill (AR-02) voted for H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027, which passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 217-209. The bill strengthe…

Jul 17, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Environmental Protection; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “radical, woke, communist” aimed at gender ideology, DEI programs · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on the floor with my colleague from Arkansas, our distinguished chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and our colleagues to give the American people some perspective on the important action that President Trump has taken that reasserts America's leadership in the Western Hemisphere, counters our rivals for that Western Hemisphere influence, Russia, Iran, China…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · ImmigrationSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Madam Speaker, in 1958, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan, paraphrasing a remark from Winston Churchill 4 years earlier, left us with the great expression: jaw-jaw is better than war-war. It is because of our great power that our rivals seek to end the American way of life through direct or gray zone war attacks or by cyber or economic destruction, and we certainly should routinely jaw- jaw wit…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Energy · Finance and Financial Sector · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Public Lands and Natural ResourcesSource

  3. Newsletters

    District Update: Arkansas Stands with Texas | | | | | Friends, I have a heavy heart this week as our neighbors in Texas confront the devastating flood in the Guadalupe River Valley. I know the area well. My wife Martha spent part of her teenage years there, and our children spent their summers on that same stretch of river. It's a beautiful part of the country that will now be forever changed by this tragedy. We are…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Emergency Management · Science, Technology, Communications · Armed Forces and National Security · Health · Immigration · Education · Finance and Financial Sector · Government Operations and Politics · Transportation and Public Works · target: Democratic colleagues

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Rohit ChopraSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from the First District of Utah for yielding. His magnificent career before he came to Congress in business and in national security make us all proud. We are so grateful that he is our vice chair of the Conference, and that he leads us in bringing the good work of Republicans to the House floor every week so the American citizens see what we are doing and hear from us directly.…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · Health · LawSource

All 1,094 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: 509 posts on X, 410 Congressional Record speeches, 91 newsletters, 84 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Finance and Financial Sector is what Hill talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 8.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 156th 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 Hill talks about. The bills Hill sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Hill talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Hill
Peers
Finance and Financial Sector192 statements
29%
3%
Armed Forces and National Security178 statements
27%
24%
Economics and Public Finance166 statements
25%
19%
Government Operations and Politics130 statements
20%
19%
International Affairs110 statements
17%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Hill talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHillPeers
Finance and Financial Sector29%3%
Armed Forces and National Security27%24%
Economics and Public Finance25%19%
Government Operations and Politics20%19%
International Affairs17%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Hill’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 onFinance and Financial SectorFinance and Financial Sector, talks about: 29% (House Republicans 3%)29%Finance and Financial Sector, legislates on: 16% (House Republicans 5%)16%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 27% (House Republicans 24%)27%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 8%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 19%)25%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 19%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 12%)8%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 9%)17%International Affairs, legislates on: 17% (House Republicans 6%)17%
Show the data
Hill's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Finance and Financial Sector29%3%16%5%
Armed Forces and National Security27%24%4%8%
Economics and Public Finance25%19%0%2%
Government Operations and Politics20%19%8%12%
International Affairs17%9%17%6%
0.62

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 156th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Hill sits at +0.83 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 75% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.82 to +0.85, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,356 donors and 6,323 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”.

+0.83

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.82 to +0.85. From 4,356 donors and 6,323 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Hill +0.8House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Hill, 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 Hill’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 Hill sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Hill +0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Hill's CSIP score of +0.83 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Hill
House Republicans221+1.025%
All House439+0.362%
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 Hill 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 Hill.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Hill raised $5.3M in the 2026 cycle, 2.4 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 1.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 34% of itemized individual money came from Arkansas.

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
$5.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,005 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): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (41.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $36.8K (0.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (34.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (23.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)41 squares$2.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$36.8K
  • PACs and other committees34 squares$1.8M
  • Party committees$5,500
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)24 squares$1.3M
Show the data
Sources of Hill's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.2M41.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$36.8K0.7%
PACs and other committees$1.8M34.1%
Party committees$5,5000.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.3M23.9%
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: $3.4M$3.4M20202022 cycle: $3.3M$3.3M20222024 cycle: $3.8M$3.8M20242026 cycle: $5.3M$5.3M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Hill's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.4M
2022 cycle$3.3M
2024 cycle$3.8M
2026 cycle$5.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 34% came from Arkansas.

  1. Arkansas$735.1K
  2. Texas$269.9K
  3. New York$194.3K
  4. California$186.8K
  5. Virginia$116.5K

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%
Hill
Median
2026
2%
9%
2024
3%
9%
2022
4%
9%
2020
6%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHillMedian
2026 cycle2%9%
2024 cycle3%9%
2022 cycle4%9%
2020 cycle6%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $500AKMaine: $1,000MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $1,000NHWashington: $12.3KWAIdaho: $500IDMontana: $15.5KMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $4,000MNIllinois: $14.5KILWisconsin: $4,000WIMichigan: $9,000MINew York: $194.3KNYRhode Island: $500RIMassachusetts: $40.2KMAOregon: $1,000ORNevada: $16.0KNVWyoming: $28.0KWYSouth Dakota: $1,000SDIowa: $2,500IAIndiana: $4,500INOhio: $11.3KOHPennsylvania: $10.1KPANew Jersey: $19.4KNJConnecticut: $44.8KCTCalifornia: $186.8KCAUtah: $14.3KUTColorado: $3,500CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $26.3KMOKentucky: $8,250KYWest Virginia: $500WVVirginia: $116.5KVAMaryland: $24.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $11.0KAZNew Mexico: $500NMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: $735.1KARTennessee: $13.0KTNNorth Carolina: $49.5KNCSouth Carolina: $11.0KSCDistrict of Columbia: $38.1KDCOklahoma: $14.5KOKLouisiana: $13.5KLAMississippi: $250MSAlabama: $13.5KALGeorgia: $38.0KGAHawaii: $500HITexas: $269.9KTXFlorida: $102.5KFL
Show the data
Hill's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Arkansas$735.1K
Texas$269.9K
New York$194.3K
California$186.8K
Virginia$116.5K
Florida$102.5K
North Carolina$49.5K
Connecticut$44.8K
Massachusetts$40.2K
District of Columbia$38.1K
Georgia$38.0K
Wyoming$28.0K
Missouri$26.3K
Maryland$24.3K
New Jersey$19.4K
Nevada$16.0K
Montana$15.5K
Illinois$14.5K
Oklahoma$14.5K
Utah$14.3K
Louisiana$13.5K
Alabama$13.5K
Tennessee$13.0K
Washington$12.3K
Ohio$11.3K
South Carolina$11.0K
Arizona$11.0K
Pennsylvania$10.1K
Michigan$9,000
Kentucky$8,250
Indiana$4,500
Minnesota$4,000
Wisconsin$4,000
Colorado$3,500
Iowa$2,500
Kansas$1,500
Maine$1,000
New Hampshire$1,000
Oregon$1,000
South Dakota$1,000
Alaska$500
Idaho$500
Rhode Island$500
West Virginia$500
New Mexico$500
Hawaii$500
Mississippi$250
VermontNo data
North DakotaNo data
NebraskaNo data
DelawareNo data
1,005

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

34%

from Arkansas

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.0%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.3%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 2.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.8%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 8.6%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 71%71%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.8%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Hill's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 6.8% between +0.25 and +0.50, 8.6% between +0.50 and +0.75, 71% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.0%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.3%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.252.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.758.6%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0071%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.8%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Hill’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Hill’s own score is +0.83.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CEO$224.4K 67 donors
  2. RETIRED$216.2K 131 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$97.0K 43 donors
  4. HOMEMAKER$88.5K 19 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$87.8K 24 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MORPAC)$16.0K
  2. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
  3. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY PAC$10.0K
  4. ALLY FINANCIAL INC. ADVOCACY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CLIFFWATER$84.0K 6 donors
  2. STEPHENS INC.$75.5K 11 donors
  3. CLIFFWATER LLC$42.0K 3 donors
  4. METLIFE$37.7K 17 donors
  5. FICO$28.9K 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Hill voted with the majority of House Republicans on 96.7% of party-line votes and missed 1.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hill voted against the majority of House Republicans 16 times.

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

16

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 96.7%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 170th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Hill
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
96.3%
64th of 221
Party unity
96.7%
97.1%
170th of 221
Show the data
Hill's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHillPeers
Attendance98.8%96.3%
Party unity96.7%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 Hill most often

  1. Steve WomackR597 shared votes100%
  2. Mike JohnsonR516 shared votes99%
  3. Young KimR661 shared votes99%
  4. Glenn ThompsonR659 shared votes99%
  5. Tom ColeR658 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hill least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD384 shared votes25%
  2. Rashida TlaibD650 shared votes26%
  3. Delia RamirezD634 shared votes26%
  4. Jan SchakowskyD622 shared votes27%
  5. Dan GoldmanD584 shared votes27%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Hill sponsored 33 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 127 others. 42% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 15th of 216).

The bills Hill 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

Sponsored33 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3333Sponsored, In committee: 3333Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 88Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored127 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 127127Cosponsored, In committee: 127127Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2323Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Hill sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3333811
Cosponsored1271272355
How to read the blocks

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

42%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 15th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler15
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick11
  3. Daniel Meuser11
  4. Mike Haridopolos11
  5. Josh Gottheimer11
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 Hill’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.Res. 1623Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month".CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10740To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10477Small Business Audit Correction Act of 2026SponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Sep 17, 2026
H.R. 10496Revising SSDI Disability Classifications ActSponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 17, 2026
H.R. 10442To require the Ronald A. Robinson Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to replace certain exterior signage, and for other purposes.SponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 55 times in 90 days. Hill’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hill posted on Oct 21, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    hill.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    36

    pages crawled

    55

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.electfrench.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    4

    pages crawled

    7

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Hill posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three men pose indoors, holding an oversized grant check in front of a college-branded backdrop. An American flag and another flag stand nearby, with library shelves and a doorway visible in the background. Text appears on the check and backdrop.
    Three men pose indoors, holding an oversized grant check in front of a college-branded backdrop. An American flag and another flag stand nearby, with library shelves and a doorway visible in the background. Text appears on the check and backdrop.View post
  • A group of people stand and talk among rows of desks in a classroom or lecture room. Two men in the foreground face each other in conversation; other people and classroom furnishings are visible in the background. Some clothing and papers contain text.
    A group of people stand and talk among rows of desks in a classroom or lecture room. Two men in the foreground face each other in conversation; other people and classroom furnishings are visible in the background. Some clothing and papers contain text.View post
  • Two men in suits smile and shake hands in an indoor hallway. A third person walks past in the background, and a plaque and screen are visible. There is text on the plaque.
    Two men in suits smile and shake hands in an indoor hallway. A third person walks past in the background, and a plaque and screen are visible. There is text on the plaque.View post
  • A man speaks and gestures beside a wooden lectern in a classroom or lecture hall, with attendees seated in the foreground. A large projection screen and whiteboard are behind him. There is text on the lectern emblem and on a red cap.
    A man speaks and gestures beside a wooden lectern in a classroom or lecture hall, with attendees seated in the foreground. A large projection screen and whiteboard are behind him. There is text on the lectern emblem and on a red cap.View post
  • A large group of students and adults pose for a photograph in a classroom or lecture room. There is text on some clothing.
    A large group of students and adults pose for a photograph in a classroom or lecture room. There is text on some clothing.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 Hill 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
H001072
Bioguide
H001072
FEC candidate ids
H4AR02141

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