Skip to content

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

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide K000399FEC H2VA02064

Portrait of Jennifer Kiggans, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.1×
the House Republican rate of bipartisan language

18% of 1,617 statements use bipartisan language (297 statements); the average for House Republicans is 8.9%. Ranks 18th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Kiggans’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches 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. Kiggans sits at +0.59 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 92% of House Republicans. Kiggans raised $7.6M in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of House Republicans (median $2.2M).

The measures on which Kiggans 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

18%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 18th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.59

More liberal than 92% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Raised, 2026

$7.6M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 18th of 220

Party unity

95.1%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 203rd of 221 · 23 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.71

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 28th of 221

Extreme labels

0.6%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 188th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Kiggans says

Kiggans attacks opponents personally less than 77% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 1,617 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 173rd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Kiggans’s 1,617 statements in the 119th Congress (1,289 posts on X, 183 press releases, 99 newsletters, 46 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%
Kiggans
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,151 statements
71%
68%
93rd of 221
Credit claiming734 statements
45%
37%
57th of 221
Bipartisanship297 statements
18%
9%
18th of 221
Policy criticism212 statements
13%
15%
131st of 221
Personal attacks6 statements
0%
2%
173rd of 221
Show the data
Kiggans's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowKiggansPeers
Policy discussion71%68%
Credit claiming45%37%
Bipartisanship18%9%
Policy criticism13%15%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,617

statements classified

1,289 posts on X, 183 press releases, 99 newsletters, 46 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,289 (79.7%)posts on X 1,289press releases: 183 (11.3%)newsletters: 99 (6.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 46 (2.8%)
Show the data
Kiggans's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,289
press releases183
newsletters99
Congressional Record speeches46
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Kiggans used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 18% of the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

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

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats2
  2. far left1
  3. left-wing base1
  4. radical base1
  5. Senate 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

Statements2025-01: 832025-02: 882025-03: 962025-04: 742025-05: 822025-06: 702025-07: 1132025-08: 682025-09: 792025-10: 742025-11: 682025-12: 832026-01: 702026-02: 772026-03: 652026-04: 782026-05: 602026-06: 642026-07: 602026-08: 572026-09: 672026-10: 41peak 113 · Jul ’25Personal attackspeak 3.4% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.2% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.4% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.4% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 113Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.4% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 41Policy criticismpeak 29.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 7.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 13.3% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-02: 13.6% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-03: 12.5% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-04: 12.2% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-05: 14.6% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-06: 10.0% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-07: 11.5% of 113Policy criticism, 2025-08: 10.3% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-09: 19.0% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-10: 29.7% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-11: 20.6% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-12: 14.5% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-01: 15.7% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-02: 13.0% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-03: 15.4% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-04: 10.3% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-05: 6.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-06: 7.8% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-07: 1.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-08: 12.3% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.4% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-10: 7.3% of 41Policy discussionpeak 85.7% · Jan ’26 · latest 85.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 57.8% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-02: 62.5% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.6% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-04: 70.3% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-05: 62.2% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-06: 68.6% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-07: 73.5% of 113Policy discussion, 2025-08: 73.5% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.8% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-10: 81.1% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-11: 66.2% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-12: 77.1% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-01: 85.7% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-02: 63.6% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.3% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-04: 73.1% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-05: 70.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-06: 64.1% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-07: 75.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-08: 84.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-09: 85.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-10: 85.4% of 41Bipartisanshippeak 31.4% · Jun ’25 · latest 14.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 21.7% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 22.7% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 14.6% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 23.0% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 23.2% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 31.4% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 12.4% of 113Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 14.7% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 27.9% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 20.3% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 23.5% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 27.7% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.7% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 11.7% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 24.6% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 20.5% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 6.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 15.6% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 7.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 19.4% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 14.6% of 41Credit claimingpeak 58.2% · Sep ’25 · latest 46.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 44.6% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-02: 39.8% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-03: 42.7% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-04: 44.6% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-05: 42.7% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-06: 44.3% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-07: 46.0% of 113Credit claiming, 2025-08: 54.4% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-09: 58.2% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-10: 48.6% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-11: 47.1% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-12: 49.4% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-01: 50.0% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-02: 41.6% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-03: 50.8% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-04: 35.9% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-05: 46.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-06: 53.1% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-07: 41.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-08: 24.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-09: 44.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-10: 46.3% of 41Extreme labelspeak 2.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.1% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.9% of 113Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.5% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.7% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-11: 1.5% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 41Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Kiggans, 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 ’25831.2%13.3%57.8%21.7%44.6%1.2%
Feb ’25883.4%13.6%62.5%22.7%39.8%1.1%
Mar ’25960.0%12.5%64.6%14.6%42.7%1.0%
Apr ’25740.0%12.2%70.3%23.0%44.6%0.0%
May ’25820.0%14.6%62.2%23.2%42.7%0.0%
Jun ’25701.4%10.0%68.6%31.4%44.3%0.0%
Jul ’251130.0%11.5%73.5%12.4%46.0%0.9%
Aug ’25680.0%10.3%73.5%14.7%54.4%0.0%
Sep ’25790.0%19.0%65.8%27.9%58.2%2.5%
Oct ’25741.4%29.7%81.1%20.3%48.6%2.7%
Nov ’25680.0%20.6%66.2%23.5%47.1%1.5%
Dec ’25830.0%14.5%77.1%27.7%49.4%0.0%
Jan ’26700.0%15.7%85.7%5.7%50.0%0.0%
Feb ’26770.0%13.0%63.6%11.7%41.6%0.0%
Mar ’26650.0%15.4%72.3%24.6%50.8%0.0%
Apr ’26780.0%10.3%73.1%20.5%35.9%0.0%
May ’26600.0%6.7%70.0%6.7%46.7%0.0%
Jun ’26640.0%7.8%64.1%15.6%53.1%0.0%
Jul ’26600.0%1.7%75.0%8.3%41.7%0.0%
Aug ’26570.0%12.3%84.2%7.0%24.6%0.0%
Sep ’26670.0%10.4%85.1%19.4%44.8%0.0%
Oct ’26410.0%7.3%85.4%14.6%46.3%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 Kiggans’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Kiggans, Goodlander Work to Strengthen Oversight of Navy’s Shipyard Modernization Program WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congresswoman Jen Kiggans (VA-02) and Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander (NH-02) introduced the Shipyard Modernization Sustainment Act, a bill that strengthens Congressional oversight over the N…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment · Source

Personal attacks

Virginia Republican Delegation Issues Joint Statement Condemning Violent Comments Made by Jay Jones Skip to Main About Our District Newsletter CPF Financial Disclosures Issues News Services Help With A Federal Agency Schedule a DC Tour Order a Flag Mobile Office Hours Apply For a Service Academy Gr…

Oct 10, 2025 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Jay Jones · Source

Extreme label

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

Nov 11, 2025 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at left-wing base · 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. Press releases

    Virginia Republican Delegation Issues Joint Statement Condemning Violent Comments Made by Jay Jones Skip to Main About Our District Newsletter CPF Financial Disclosures Issues News Services Help With A Federal Agency Schedule a DC Tour Order a Flag Mobile Office Hours Apply For a Service Academy Grant Applicants Apply For an Internship Request A Meeting Congressional App Challenge Request a Congressional Commendatio…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jay JonesSource

  2. Newsletters

    The Weekly Debrief | | | | | Friends, It was a busy and impactful week back home in Virginia's Second District...! While working in the district, I continued advancing key legislative priorities in Washington-co-leading bills like the Fluent Forces Act and the Service Member Housing Relief Act, which support our military families and national security mission. Here at home, I hosted a small business roundtable and j…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Education · Immigration · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Transportation and Public Works · Taxation · Housing and Community Development · target: Smedley Butler

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Unnamed SpeakerSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacksSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record remarks submitted at the request of a Virginia Beach constituent, Rabbi Dr. Israel Zoberman of Temple Lev Tikvah, and are a reflection of his views: I have returned from the torn Land of Israel where I grew up, following a visit throughout July of a shaking, even shocking experience. Israel is undergoing a trauma whose lasting impact is impossible to predict. However, the current…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Health · Education · extreme label “extreme, radical”Source

All 1,617 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: 1,289 posts on X, 183 press releases, 99 newsletters, 46 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Kiggans talks about most: 55% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 28th 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 Kiggans talks about. The bills Kiggans sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Kiggans talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%61%
Kiggans
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security638 statements
55%
24%
Health337 statements
29%
15%
Government Operations and Politics186 statements
16%
19%
Economics and Public Finance165 statements
14%
19%
Taxation145 statements
13%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Kiggans talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowKiggansPeers
Armed Forces and National Security55%24%
Health29%15%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%
Economics and Public Finance14%19%
Taxation13%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Kiggans’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 61%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 55% (House Republicans 24%)55%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 29% (House Republicans 8%)29%HealthHealth, talks about: 29% (House Republicans 15%)29%Health, legislates on: 19% (House Republicans 11%)19%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 19%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 12%)7%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 19%)14%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%TaxationTaxation, talks about: 13% (House Republicans 10%)13%Taxation, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 9%)9%
Show the data
Kiggans's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security55%24%29%8%
Health29%15%19%11%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%7%12%
Economics and Public Finance14%19%1%2%
Taxation13%10%9%9%
0.71

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 28th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Kiggans sits at +0.59 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 92% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.58 to +0.61, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,218 donors and 2,401 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”.

+0.59

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.58 to +0.61. From 5,218 donors and 2,401 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Kiggans +0.6House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Kiggans, 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 Kiggans’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 Kiggans sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Kiggans +0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Kiggans's CSIP score of +0.59 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Kiggans
House Republicans221+1.08%
All House439+0.354%
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 Kiggans 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 Kiggans.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Kiggans raised $7.6M in the 2026 cycle, 3.5 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 24% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 63% of itemized individual money came from Virginia.

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
$7.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,302 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): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (41.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $981.6K (12.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (20.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (25.6%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)41 squares$3.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)13 squares$981.6K
  • PACs and other committees20 squares$1.5M
  • Party committees$11.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)26 squares$1.9M
Show the data
Sources of Kiggans's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.1M41.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$981.6K12.9%
PACs and other committees$1.5M20.4%
Party committees$11.5K0.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.9M25.6%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $3.4M$3.4M20222024 cycle: $6.5M$6.5M20242026 cycle: $7.6M$7.6M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Kiggans's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$3.4M
2024 cycle$6.5M
2026 cycle$7.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 63% came from Virginia.

  1. Virginia$1.7M
  2. Texas$126.9K
  3. Florida$126.0K
  4. California$87.5K
  5. District of Columbia$79.8K

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%
Kiggans
Median
2026
24%
9%
2024
31%
9%
2022
18%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowKiggansMedian
2026 cycle24%9%
2024 cycle31%9%
2022 cycle18%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $534AKMaine: $2,483MEVermont: $1,322VTNew Hampshire: $11.8KNHWashington: $14.2KWAIdaho: $2,645IDMontana: $1,054MTNorth Dakota: $734NDMinnesota: $2,437MNIllinois: $26.1KILWisconsin: $5,970WIMichigan: $24.2KMINew York: $55.9KNYRhode Island: $4,939RIMassachusetts: $24.7KMAOregon: $5,699ORNevada: $6,449NVWyoming: $2,239WYSouth Dakota: $779SDIowa: $9,855IAIndiana: $17.5KINOhio: $16.5KOHPennsylvania: $30.1KPANew Jersey: $9,178NJConnecticut: $8,290CTCalifornia: $87.5KCAUtah: $14.5KUTColorado: $7,480CONebraska: $2,191NEMissouri: $18.7KMOKentucky: $2,545KYWest Virginia: $777WVVirginia: $1.7MVAMaryland: $31.6KMDDelaware: $1,164DEArizona: $17.2KAZNew Mexico: $7,189NMKansas: $2,157KSArkansas: $9,219ARTennessee: $18.7KTNNorth Carolina: $27.3KNCSouth Carolina: $11.7KSCDistrict of Columbia: $79.8KDCOklahoma: $8,559OKLouisiana: $24.4KLAMississippi: $2,297MSAlabama: $11.9KALGeorgia: $19.3KGAHawaii: $1,212HITexas: $126.9KTXFlorida: $126.0KFL
Show the data
Kiggans's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Virginia$1.7M
Texas$126.9K
Florida$126.0K
California$87.5K
District of Columbia$79.8K
New York$55.9K
Maryland$31.6K
Pennsylvania$30.1K
North Carolina$27.3K
Illinois$26.1K
Massachusetts$24.7K
Louisiana$24.4K
Michigan$24.2K
Georgia$19.3K
Tennessee$18.7K
Missouri$18.7K
Indiana$17.5K
Arizona$17.2K
Ohio$16.5K
Utah$14.5K
Washington$14.2K
Alabama$11.9K
New Hampshire$11.8K
South Carolina$11.7K
Iowa$9,855
Arkansas$9,219
New Jersey$9,178
Oklahoma$8,559
Connecticut$8,290
Colorado$7,480
New Mexico$7,189
Nevada$6,449
Wisconsin$5,970
Oregon$5,699
Rhode Island$4,939
Idaho$2,645
Kentucky$2,545
Maine$2,483
Minnesota$2,437
Mississippi$2,297
Wyoming$2,239
Nebraska$2,191
Kansas$2,157
Vermont$1,322
Hawaii$1,212
Delaware$1,164
Montana$1,054
South Dakota$779
West Virginia$777
North Dakota$734
Alaska$534
2,302

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

63%

from Virginia

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 Virginia. 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: 0.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 49%49%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 28%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 11%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Kiggans's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 49% between +0.50 and +0.75, 28% between +0.75 and +1.00, 11% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7549%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0028%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2511%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Kiggans’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Kiggans’s own score is +0.59.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$1.1M 1,560 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$148.7K 43 donors
  3. CEO$97.4K 42 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$70.9K 22 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER$55.0K 9 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICA'S FIRST PAC$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (CRNA-PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. COLONNA'S SHIPYARD INC.$30.5K 3 donors
  2. REGULUS GLOBAL LLC$9,118 4 donors
  3. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$5,000 8 donors
  4. NAPOLITANO HOMES$3,000 3 donors
  5. CROSSROADS STRATEGIES$1,750 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Kiggans voted with the majority of House Republicans on 95.1% of party-line votes and missed 1.8% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Kiggans voted against the majority of House Republicans 23 times.

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

23

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 95.1%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 203rd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Kiggans
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.2%
96.3%
103rd of 221
Party unity
95.1%
97.1%
203rd of 221
Show the data
Kiggans's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowKiggansPeers
Attendance98.2%96.3%
Party unity95.1%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

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 Kiggans most often

  1. Dan NewhouseR647 shared votes99%
  2. Glenn ThompsonR655 shared votes99%
  3. Mike JohnsonR517 shared votes99%
  4. Cliff BentzR661 shared votes98%
  5. Hal RogersR650 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kiggans least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD384 shared votes26%
  2. Rashida TlaibD647 shared votes26%
  3. Delia RamirezD631 shared votes27%
  4. Gregorio CasarD566 shared votes28%
  5. Summer LeeD662 shared votes28%
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

Kiggans sponsored 56 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 422 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 111th of 216).

The bills Kiggans 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

Sponsored56 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5656Sponsored, In committee: 5656Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 55Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored422 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 422422Cosponsored, In committee: 422422Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4343Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Kiggans sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5656500
Cosponsored4224224322
How to read the blocks

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

13%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 111th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick80
  2. Eugene Vindman61
  3. Michael Lawler56
  4. Robert Wittman52
  5. Don Bacon50
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 Kiggans’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. 10871Military Family Relocation Support ActCosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10885To ensure delivery service providers have partnership agreements with the restaurants for which the providers deliver, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 22, 2026
H.Res. 1635Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day".CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10848To require the Comptroller General of the United States to review of Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10693GI Bill Transferability ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 130 times in 90 days. Kiggans’s official site had 48 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Kiggans posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    kiggans.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    48

    pages crawled

    130

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    jenforcongress.com

    Last crawled Jun 28, 2026

    12

    pages crawled

    0

    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 Kiggans posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Four people pose in front of a building sign for a naval command and shipyard. Two people wear military uniforms, and the others wear civilian clothing. There is additional text and a campaign-style logo in the image.
    Four people pose in front of a building sign for a naval command and shipyard. Two people wear military uniforms, and the others wear civilian clothing. There is additional text and a campaign-style logo in the image.View post
  • Five people pose together behind a community information table at an indoor event. One woman wears a blue princess-style gown and tiara, and another wears a colorful costume. A black curtain and a sign are behind them; pamphlets and other materials cover the table. Text appears on the sign and printed materials.
    Five people pose together behind a community information table at an indoor event. One woman wears a blue princess-style gown and tiara, and another wears a colorful costume. A black curtain and a sign are behind them; pamphlets and other materials cover the table. Text appears on the sign and printed materials.View post
  • Five people pose together behind a community information booth at an indoor event. One woman wears a blue princess-style gown and tiara, and another wears a colorful character-inspired dress. A table displays brochures, flyers, and other promotional materials. There is text on the booth sign and printed materials.
    Five people pose together behind a community information booth at an indoor event. One woman wears a blue princess-style gown and tiara, and another wears a colorful character-inspired dress. A table displays brochures, flyers, and other promotional materials. There is text on the booth sign and printed materials.View post
  • A smiling woman crouches beside a small pen holding two white ducks at an indoor animal show. In the background, goats and a donkey stand in another enclosure, with visitors and event tables nearby. A sign with text is attached to one of the pens.
    A smiling woman crouches beside a small pen holding two white ducks at an indoor animal show. In the background, goats and a donkey stand in another enclosure, with visitors and event tables nearby. A sign with text is attached to one of the pens.View post
  • Two women pose for a photo at an indoor event or convention. Other people, booths, and tables are visible in the background. There are signs and other text in the scene.
    Two women pose for a photo at an indoor event or convention. Other people, booths, and tables are visible in the background. There are signs and other text in the scene.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 Kiggans 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
K000399
Bioguide
K000399
FEC candidate ids
H2VA02064

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