Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Pennsylvania’s 13th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide J000302FEC H8PA13125

Portrait of John Joyce, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.4%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans

0.4% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 212th of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $2.8M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. The policy areas Joyce talks about and legislates on agree at 0.53 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans. 25% of Joyce’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Pennsylvania, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans.

The measures on which Joyce 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.

Small donations, 2026

0.4%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 212th of 220

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.53

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 206th of 221

Attendance

99.8%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 13th of 221 · 674 roll calls

Party unity

99.3%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 22nd of 221 · 33 votes against the majority of House Republicans

From Pennsylvania, 2026

25%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 190th of 216 House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+1.12

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Joyce says

Joyce attacks opponents personally less than 63% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.6% of 638 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 141st of 221.

An AI model reads each of Joyce’s 638 statements in the 119th Congress (296 posts on X, 209 Congressional Record speeches, 80 newsletters, 53 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%
Joyce
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion431 statements
68%
68%
125th of 221
Credit claiming305 statements
48%
37%
38th of 221
Policy criticism106 statements
17%
15%
77th of 221
Bipartisanship95 statements
15%
9%
33rd of 221
Personal attacks4 statements
1%
2%
141st of 221
Show the data
Joyce's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowJoycePeers
Policy discussion68%68%
Credit claiming48%37%
Policy criticism17%15%
Bipartisanship15%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
638

statements classified

296 posts on X, 209 Congressional Record speeches, 80 newsletters, 53 press releases.

posts on X: 296 (46.4%)posts on X 296Congressional Record speeches: 209 (32.8%)Congressional Record speeches 209newsletters: 80 (12.5%)press releases: 53 (8.3%)
Show the data
Joyce's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X296
Congressional Record speeches209
newsletters80
press releases53
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Joyce used extreme labels in 2.4% of statements, below the peer average. 15 statements, most often aimed at California ban; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”5
  2. “far left”3
  3. “communist”2
  4. “extreme”1
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. California ban1
  2. California Democrats1
  3. climate projects1
  4. Democrats1
  5. EV mandate1
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: 392025-02: 332025-03: 312025-04: 342025-05: 352025-06: 432025-07: 282025-08: 162025-09: 292025-10: 162025-11: 272025-12: 332026-01: 362026-02: 302026-03: 372026-04: 392026-05: 322026-06: 282026-07: 312026-08: 122026-09: 172026-10: 12peak 43 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 7.4% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.4% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.2% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 12Policy criticismpeak 30.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 8.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 15.4% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-02: 30.3% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-03: 22.6% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-04: 20.6% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-05: 20.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-06: 23.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-07: 17.9% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-08: 12.5% of 16Policy criticism, 2025-09: 27.6% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-10: 12.5% of 16Policy criticism, 2025-11: 11.1% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-12: 12.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-01: 13.9% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-02: 10.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-03: 13.5% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-04: 20.5% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-05: 15.6% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-06: 7.1% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-07: 12.9% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-09: 11.8% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-10: 8.3% of 12Policy discussionpeak 85.7% · Jul ’25 · latest 83.3%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 71.8% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-02: 72.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.5% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-04: 61.8% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-05: 77.1% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-07: 85.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-08: 75.0% of 16Policy discussion, 2025-09: 69.0% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-10: 62.5% of 16Policy discussion, 2025-11: 63.0% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-12: 75.8% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-01: 69.4% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.0% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-03: 48.6% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-04: 69.2% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-05: 68.8% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-06: 60.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-07: 51.6% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-08: 33.3% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-09: 70.6% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-10: 83.3% of 12Bipartisanshippeak 28.6% · Jul ’25 · latest 16.7%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 23.1% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 24.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 22.6% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.9% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 20.0% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 14.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 28.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 16Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.3% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 0.0% of 16Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.1% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 12.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.6% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 13.5% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 15.4% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 25.0% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.3% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 19.4% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 17.6% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 16.7% of 12Credit claimingpeak 65.7% · May ’25 · latest 33.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 53.8% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-02: 54.5% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-03: 58.1% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-04: 41.2% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-05: 65.7% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-06: 53.5% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-07: 64.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-08: 43.8% of 16Credit claiming, 2025-09: 55.2% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-10: 43.8% of 16Credit claiming, 2025-11: 51.8% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-12: 48.5% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-01: 36.1% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-02: 53.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-03: 32.4% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-04: 51.3% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-05: 43.8% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-06: 35.7% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-07: 38.7% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-08: 25.0% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-09: 35.3% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-10: 33.3% of 12Extreme labelspeak 12.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 10.3% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-03: 6.5% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-04: 8.8% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-08: 6.3% of 16Extreme labels, 2025-09: 6.9% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-10: 12.5% of 16Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-12: 3.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 12Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Joyce, 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 ’25390.0%15.4%71.8%23.1%53.8%10.3%
Feb ’25330.0%30.3%72.7%24.2%54.5%0.0%
Mar ’25310.0%22.6%64.5%22.6%58.1%6.5%
Apr ’25342.9%20.6%61.8%5.9%41.2%8.8%
May ’25350.0%20.0%77.1%20.0%65.7%0.0%
Jun ’25430.0%23.3%79.1%14.0%53.5%0.0%
Jul ’25280.0%17.9%85.7%28.6%64.3%0.0%
Aug ’25160.0%12.5%75.0%0.0%43.8%6.3%
Sep ’25290.0%27.6%69.0%10.3%55.2%6.9%
Oct ’25160.0%12.5%62.5%0.0%43.8%12.5%
Nov ’25277.4%11.1%63.0%11.1%51.8%0.0%
Dec ’25330.0%12.1%75.8%12.1%48.5%3.0%
Jan ’26360.0%13.9%69.4%5.6%36.1%0.0%
Feb ’26300.0%10.0%60.0%6.7%53.3%0.0%
Mar ’26370.0%13.5%48.6%13.5%32.4%0.0%
Apr ’26390.0%20.5%69.2%15.4%51.3%0.0%
May ’26320.0%15.6%68.8%25.0%43.8%0.0%
Jun ’26280.0%7.1%60.7%14.3%35.7%0.0%
Jul ’26313.2%12.9%51.6%19.4%38.7%0.0%
Aug ’26120.0%0.0%33.3%0.0%25.0%0.0%
Sep ’26170.0%11.8%70.6%17.6%35.3%0.0%
Oct ’26120.0%8.3%83.3%16.7%33.3%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 Joyce’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Dr. Joyce Sends Letters Requesting Answers Following Multiple Train Derailments in Blair County Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman John Joyce sent letters to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Norfolk Southern seeking answers after at least four train derailments occurred in Blair Coun…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Emergency Management · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jul 28, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Health; target: Anthony Fauci · Source

Extreme label

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the great energy bills that will come to the House floor later this week. This Congress, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have worked diligently to improve grid reliability as well as the permitting process for Federal projects, ultimately suppo…

Dec 9, 2025 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at State governments · 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. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Anthony FauciSource

  2. Newsletters

    A Weekly Update from Dr. Joyce: November 23, 2025 | | | | Dear Neighbor, Thank you for taking the time to read about my work to serve Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District as your hometown Congressman. Need assistance with a federal agency? My office may be able to help! Please visit to learn more. | | | | This week, as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I held a…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Science, Technology, Communications · Law · Education · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Energy · Agriculture and Food · target: Stacey Plaskett

  3. Press releases

    Dr. Joyce's Statement on House Vote to Release the Epstein Files Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13) released the following statement after voting to support H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act: “The American people, and the survivors of the horrible crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, deserve full accountability, transparency, and justice,” said Congressman Joyce. “That is why…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jeffrey EpsteinSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: public health administratorsSource

All 638 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: 296 posts on X, 209 Congressional Record speeches, 80 newsletters, 53 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Joyce talks about most: 37% of policy statements, 2.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.53 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 206th 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 Joyce talks about. The bills Joyce sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Joyce talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%53%
Joyce
Peers
Health161 statements
37%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security108 statements
25%
24%
Agriculture and Food102 statements
24%
9%
Commerce85 statements
20%
9%
Energy83 statements
19%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Joyce talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowJoycePeers
Health37%15%
Armed Forces and National Security25%24%
Agriculture and Food24%9%
Commerce20%9%
Energy19%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Joyce’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 53%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 37% (House Republicans 15%)37%Health, legislates on: 48% (House Republicans 11%)48%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 24%)25%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 8%)2%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 9%)24%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 3%)0%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 9%)20%Commerce, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 2%)4%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 9%)19%Energy, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 3%)4%
Show the data
Joyce's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Health37%15%48%11%
Armed Forces and National Security25%24%2%8%
Agriculture and Food24%9%0%3%
Commerce20%9%4%2%
Energy19%9%4%3%
0.53

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 206th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Joyce sits at +1.12 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 68% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.11 to +1.14, which understates the uncertainty; from 836 donors and 3,806 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”.

+1.12

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.11 to +1.14. From 836 donors and 3,806 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Joyce +1.1House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Joyce, 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 Joyce’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 Joyce sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Joyce +1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Joyce's CSIP score of +1.12 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Joyce
House Republicans221+1.068%
All House439+0.384%
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 Joyce 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 Joyce.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Joyce raised $2.8M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 25% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.

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
$2.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 243 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): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $496.6K (18.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (58.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $634.7K (23.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)18 squares$496.6K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,861
  • PACs and other committees59 squares$1.6M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)23 squares$634.7K
Show the data
Sources of Joyce's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$496.6K18.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,8610.1%
PACs and other committees$1.6M58.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$634.7K23.0%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20202022 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M20222024 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20242026 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Joyce's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.1M
2022 cycle$1.5M
2024 cycle$2.3M
2026 cycle$2.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 25% came from Pennsylvania.

  1. Virginia$121.8K
  2. Pennsylvania$121.0K
  3. Texas$43.9K
  4. District of Columbia$41.8K
  5. California$32.9K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.

0%60%
Joyce
Median
2026
0%
9%
2024
2%
9%
2022
1%
9%
2020
5%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowJoyceMedian
2026 cycle0%9%
2024 cycle2%9%
2022 cycle1%9%
2020 cycle5%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: $1,000NDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $8,760ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $16.3KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $1,500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $8,633NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $250INOhio: $1,010OHPennsylvania: $121.0KPANew Jersey: $2,000NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $32.9KCAUtah: $10.5KUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $2,200KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $121.8KVAMaryland: $21.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $7,000TNNorth Carolina: $8,260NCSouth Carolina: $6,800SCDistrict of Columbia: $41.8KDCOklahoma: $1,000OKLouisiana: $7,500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $750ALGeorgia: $3,260GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $43.9KTXFlorida: $8,750FL
Show the data
Joyce's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Virginia$121.8K
Pennsylvania$121.0K
Texas$43.9K
District of Columbia$41.8K
California$32.9K
Maryland$21.3K
New York$16.3K
Utah$10.5K
Illinois$8,760
Florida$8,750
Nevada$8,633
North Carolina$8,260
Louisiana$7,500
Tennessee$7,000
South Carolina$6,800
Georgia$3,260
Kentucky$2,200
New Jersey$2,000
Massachusetts$1,500
Ohio$1,010
North Dakota$1,000
Oklahoma$1,000
Alabama$750
Indiana$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
243

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

25%

from Pennsylvania

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.8%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 14%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 44%44%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 26%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Joyce's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 5.5% between −0.25 and 0.00, 14% between +0.50 and +0.75, 44% between +0.75 and +1.00, 26% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.8%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7514%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0044%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2526%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Joyce’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Joyce’s own score is +1.12.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CONSULTANT$70.5K 25 donors
  2. PHYSICIAN$53.5K 27 donors
  3. CEO$39.6K 15 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$22.8K 9 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$22.1K 8 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALNYLAM PAC)$10.0K
  2. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (FAMMEDPAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY BRAINPAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BGR GROUP$16.9K 4 donors
  2. MIDLANTIC UROLOGY$11.1K 4 donors
  3. FARRAGUT PARTNERS$10.5K 4 donors
  4. ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ$10.0K 3 donors
  5. AEY GLOBAL$9,900 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Joyce voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Joyce voted against the majority of House Republicans 33 times.

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

33

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.3%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 22nd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Joyce
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
96.3%
13th of 221
Party unity
99.3%
97.1%
22nd of 221
Show the data
Joyce's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowJoycePeers
Attendance99.8%96.3%
Party unity99.3%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 Joyce most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR520 shared votes98%
  2. Mark E. GreenR172 shared votes98%
  3. Jim JordanR651 shared votes98%
  4. Tracey MannR671 shared votes97%
  5. Tony WiedR665 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Joyce least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD657 shared votes20%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD387 shared votes20%
  3. Gregorio CasarD574 shared votes21%
  4. Delia RamirezD640 shared votes22%
  5. Brittany PettersenD569 shared votes22%
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

Joyce sponsored 26 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 152 others. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 124th of 216).

The bills Joyce 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

Sponsored26 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2626Sponsored, In committee: 2626Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored152 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 152152Cosponsored, In committee: 152152Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2929Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Joyce sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2626321
Cosponsored1521522955
How to read the blocks

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

12%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 124th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Troy Balderson14
  2. Robert Bresnahan13
  3. Gus Bilirakis12
  4. Neal Dunn12
  5. Brian Fitzpatrick12
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 Joyce’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10645SMART ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10615Medicaid Integrity Improvement ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10625Medicaid Integrity Improvement ActSponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10628Biosimilars Access and Affordability ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10633Medicaid Integrity and Fiscal Accountability ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 83 times in 90 days. Joyce’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Joyce posted on Oct 15, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Joyce posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man in a suit sits at a wooden office desk, signing a printed document. A laptop and mouse are on the desk, with framed items and photographs in the background. The document contains text.
    A man in a suit sits at a wooden office desk, signing a printed document. A laptop and mouse are on the desk, with framed items and photographs in the background. The document contains text.View post
  • A formal dark-blue government-style pledge poster with a circular presidential seal at the top right, a large headline, several paragraphs and a numbered list, and handwritten signatures near the bottom. The background includes a faint decorative eagle motif. The image contains extensive text.
    A formal dark-blue government-style pledge poster with a circular presidential seal at the top right, a large headline, several paragraphs and a numbered list, and handwritten signatures near the bottom. The background includes a faint decorative eagle motif. The image contains extensive text.View post
  • A man in a blue shirt reaches across a market stall to accept or hand over a small item, while three vendors smile behind a table covered with packaged baked goods. The stall is under a tent, and some text appears on clothing and product labels.
    A man in a blue shirt reaches across a market stall to accept or hand over a small item, while three vendors smile behind a table covered with packaged baked goods. The stall is under a tent, and some text appears on clothing and product labels.View post
  • Four men pose for a photograph beside a sheriff's SUV at an outdoor community event. Three men wear sheriff's uniforms, and one wears a blue shirt and jeans. A building with a Lions Club sign, tents, and people are visible in the background. Text appears on the building, uniforms, and vehicle.
    Four men pose for a photograph beside a sheriff's SUV at an outdoor community event. Three men wear sheriff's uniforms, and one wears a blue shirt and jeans. A building with a Lions Club sign, tents, and people are visible in the background. Text appears on the building, uniforms, and vehicle.View post
  • A man and a woman pose together at a market stall beneath a tent, holding a bag of fruit. The stall displays flowers, pumpkins, and more bagged fruit, with other people and market booths in the background. Decorative signs and star garlands hang overhead, and an American flag is visible. Text appears on the signs and the man's shirt.
    A man and a woman pose together at a market stall beneath a tent, holding a bag of fruit. The stall displays flowers, pumpkins, and more bagged fruit, with other people and market booths in the background. Decorative signs and star garlands hang overhead, and an American flag is visible. Text appears on the signs and the man's shirt.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 Joyce 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
J000302
Bioguide
J000302
FEC candidate ids
H8PA13125

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