Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 6, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Chuck Schumer · Source
0.44
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom 5% of House Republicans
Agreement 0.44 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Republicans is 0.64. Ranks 215th of 221, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Hern’s statements matches the mix in the bills Hern sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among House Republicans.
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. Hern raised $10.9M in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of House Republicans (median $2.2M). 56% of Hern’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 68%).
The measures on which Hern 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.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.44
House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 215th of 221
Raised, 2026
$10.9M
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 6th of 220
Policy discussion
56%
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 194th of 221
Bipartisanship
3.4%
House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 192nd of 221
CSIP ideology
+1.33
More conservative than 89% of House Republicans · ± 0.02
Personal attacks
3.6%
House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 44th of 221
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hern, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hern is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hern says
Hern stresses bipartisanship less than 86% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 3.4% of 559 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 192nd of 221.
An AI model reads each of Hern’s 559 statements in the 119th Congress (478 posts on X, 52 press releases, 18 newsletters, 11 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Hern
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion315 statements
56%
68%
194th of 221
Credit claiming205 statements
37%
37%
119th of 221
Policy criticism78 statements
14%
15%
115th of 221
Personal attacks20 statements
4%
2%
44th of 221
Bipartisanship19 statements
3%
9%
192nd of 221
Show the data
| Row | Hern | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 56% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 37% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 4% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 9% |
559
statements classified
478 posts on X, 52 press releases, 18 newsletters, 11 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 478 |
| press releases | 52 |
| newsletters | 18 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 11 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hern; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hern does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hern used extreme labels in 3.2% of statements, close to the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
- “radical”6
- “communist”2
- “extreme”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats2
- Senate Democrats2
- Communist1
- Donald Trump1
- House Democrats1
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 | 95 | 9.5% | 22.1% | 46.3% | 1.1% | 28.4% | 7.4% |
| Feb ’25 | 70 | 1.4% | 15.7% | 50.0% | 8.6% | 48.6% | 4.3% |
| Mar ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 80.0% | 5.0% | 65.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 32 | 3.1% | 12.5% | 53.1% | 3.1% | 40.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 50 | 10.0% | 4.0% | 46.0% | 2.0% | 32.0% | 4.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 18.9% | 64.9% | 2.7% | 35.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 29 | 10.3% | 0.0% | 27.6% | 0.0% | 27.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 44.4% | 11.1% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 52.9% | 82.3% | 5.9% | 35.3% | 11.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 14.3% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 42.9% | 4.8% |
| Dec ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 19.2% | 80.8% | 7.7% | 69.2% | 3.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 76.5% | 5.9% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 76.0% | 4.0% | 44.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 41.7% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 54.5% | 0.0% | 31.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 20.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 92.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 4 | — (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 Hern’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
Madam Speaker and my dear friend, I rise today for what will likely be my last speech as a Member of this Chamber. Nine years ago, I was having coffee with my wife, Tammy, when she encouraged me to run for Congress. While I am sure there were times when she regretted that encouragement, she has rema…
Sep 15, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation · Source
Extreme label
Hern Votes to Fund ICE and CBP WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Kevin Hern (OK-01) today voted in support of the second reconciliation package to fully fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Following his vote, Rep. Hern said: “Let’s remember why we ha…
Jun 9, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · 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.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Chuck SchumerSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: BidenSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · target: expertsSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: James ComeySource
All 559 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: 478 posts on X, 52 press releases, 18 newsletters, 11 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Hern talks about most: 24% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.44 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 215th 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 Hern talks about. The bills Hern sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hern talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Hern
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security75 statements
24%
24%
Economics and Public Finance70 statements
22%
19%
Taxation48 statements
15%
10%
Government Operations and Politics47 statements
15%
19%
International Affairs47 statements
15%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Hern | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 24% | 24% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 22% | 19% |
| Taxation | 15% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 19% |
| International Affairs | 15% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hern’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.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 24% | 24% | 2% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 22% | 19% | 0% | 2% |
| Taxation | 15% | 10% | 31% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 19% | 12% | 12% |
| International Affairs | 15% | 9% | 2% | 6% |
0.44
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 215th of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hern legislates on exactly the areas Hern 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 Hern sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hern sits at +1.33 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 89% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.31 to +1.34, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,637 donors and 3,884 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”.
+1.33
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +1.31 to +1.34. From 1,637 donors and 3,884 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hern, 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 Hern’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 Hern sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hern |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 89% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 94% |
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 Hern 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 Hern.
Money
Hern raised $10.9M in the 2026 cycle, 5.1 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 13% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 51% of itemized individual money came from Oklahoma.
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.
$10.9M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 705 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)16 squares$1.8M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$257.3K
- PACs and other committees20 squares$2.2M
- Party committees1 squares$62.0K
- The candidate’s own money and loans46 squares$5.1M
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)15 squares$1.6M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.8M | 16.1% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $257.3K | 2.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $2.2M | 20.0% |
| Party committees | $62.0K | 0.6% |
| The candidate’s own money and loans | $5.1M | 46.3% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $1.6M | 14.6% |
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.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.4M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.7M |
| 2024 cycle | $2.7M |
| 2026 cycle | $10.9M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 51% came from Oklahoma.
- Oklahoma$1.0M
- Virginia$255.8K
- District of Columbia$94.5K
- Texas$93.1K
- Maryland$83.5K
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%
Hern
Median
2026
13%
9%
2024
5%
9%
2022
6%
9%
2020
5%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Hern | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 13% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 5% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 6% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 5% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Oklahoma | $1.0M |
| Virginia | $255.8K |
| District of Columbia | $94.5K |
| Texas | $93.1K |
| Maryland | $83.5K |
| Florida | $63.1K |
| New York | $57.2K |
| Arizona | $49.5K |
| Arkansas | $44.3K |
| California | $33.9K |
| Louisiana | $21.0K |
| Pennsylvania | $20.6K |
| Kentucky | $18.6K |
| Kansas | $15.7K |
| Alabama | $12.9K |
| Missouri | $11.2K |
| North Carolina | $10.8K |
| South Carolina | $10.5K |
| Georgia | $8,117 |
| Iowa | $8,000 |
| Connecticut | $7,638 |
| Nevada | $7,000 |
| Illinois | $5,884 |
| Utah | $4,655 |
| Washington | $4,500 |
| Ohio | $3,722 |
| Delaware | $3,504 |
| Minnesota | $3,090 |
| Colorado | $3,052 |
| Tennessee | $2,844 |
| New Jersey | $2,695 |
| Oregon | $2,500 |
| Massachusetts | $1,713 |
| Michigan | $1,107 |
| Mississippi | $1,084 |
| Indiana | $1,045 |
| Idaho | $750 |
| Montana | $500 |
| Hawaii | $312 |
| West Virginia | $91 |
| New Mexico | $16 |
| Wisconsin | $14 |
| Maine | $10 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
705
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
51%
from Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma. 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 | 0.3% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.7% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 2.0% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 1.3% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 3.8% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 4.6% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 63% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 22% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 2.3% |
| CSIP +1.50 to +1.75 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Hern’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Hern’s own score is +1.33.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- CEO$311.1K 41 donors
- RETIRED$279.6K 167 donors
- CONSULTANT$177.1K 41 donors
- OWNER$73.9K 16 donors
- EXECUTIVE$69.8K 13 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- NRSC$62.0K
- HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
- CATERPILLAR INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CATPAC)$15.0K
- ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ABC PAC)$15.0K
- HF SINCLAIR CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DINO PAC)$15.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NEXTEP$58.2K 3 donors
- BGR GROUP$35.8K 8 donors
- TODD STRATEGY GROUP$22.5K 4 donors
- CHICKASAW NATION$21.9K 3 donors
- THE NICKLES GROUP$18.0K 8 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hern voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed 2.4% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hern voted against the majority of House Republicans 20 times.
674 roll calls Hern 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 Hern voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
20
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 99.1%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 49th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hern, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hern
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.6%
96.3%
134th of 221
Party unity
99.1%
97.1%
49th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Hern | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.6% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 99.1% | 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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 Hern most often
- Mike JohnsonR513 shared votes100%
- Mark E. GreenR169 shared votes98%
- Tracey MannR656 shared votes98%
- Troy NehlsR612 shared votes98%
- Randy Weber Sr.R643 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hern least often
- Rashida TlaibD642 shared votes21%
- Adelita GrijalvaD380 shared votes22%
- Frederica WilsonD471 shared votes22%
- Delia RamirezD625 shared votes23%
- Brittany PettersenD557 shared votes23%
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
Hern sponsored 18 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 108 others. 28% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 38th of 216).
The bills Hern 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 | 18 | 18 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 108 | 108 | 14 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hern sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hern cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
28%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 38th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hern, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Nathaniel Moran12
- Mike Carey10
- Carol Miller10
- Adrian Smith9
- Claudia Tenney9
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 Hern’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 9468 | STAR Act | Sponsor | Jun 25, 2026 | In committee | Health | Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 0. Jul 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 9298 | Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act | Cosponsor | Jun 11, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jun 11, 2026 |
| H.R. 9060 | Precious Metals Parity Act | Sponsor | May 29, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. May 29, 2026 |
| H.R. 8891 | Rural MOMS Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | May 19, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. May 19, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1156 | Expressing support for tax policies that support working families. | Cosponsor | Apr 9, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation | Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. Apr 16, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 59 times in 90 days. Hern’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hern posted on Oct 15, 2026.
The lab crawls Hern’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 Hern posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 38
pages crawled
59changes in 90 days
- 5
pages crawled
4changes 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
- Xrepkevinhern
- Facebookrepkevinhern
- YouTubeUC9XRRGCgGOEtEOwUAo1rYZg
- Emailrepkevinhern@mail.house.gov
Images Hern posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A man in a suit speaks into a microphone at a lectern in a conference room. Audience members sit at tables, and flags and decorations are visible. The lectern has text.View post 
A speaker presents to a seated audience in a conference room. Tables are decorated with small flags and patriotic items, and presentation screens display text and graphics.View post 
A man in a suit speaks with a woman in a meeting room while several people sit at tables and chairs in the background. There is no prominent visible text.View post 
A man in a suit speaks into a handheld microphone beside a lectern in a wood-paneled room. A laptop and a small microphone are on the lectern, which has a logo and text.View post 
A blue-toned commemorative poster featuring a waving Israeli flag with a Star of David. Large text is centered inside a rectangular border, with a small House GOP logo near the bottom.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 Hern 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
- H001082
- Bioguide
- H001082
- FEC candidate ids
- H8OK01157, S6OK04247
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