Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Northern Mariana Islands at large

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide K000404FEC H4MP01022

Portrait of Kimberlyn King-Hinds, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
100%
of House Republicans score to the right of King-Hinds on the CSIP scale

CSIP score +0.15 (approximate range +0.10 to +0.20, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 89 donors and 66 roll calls.

CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where King-Hinds sits among House Republicans, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. King-Hinds raised $103.4K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (median $2.2M). 0% of King-Hinds’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (average 2.1%).

The measures on which King-Hinds 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.

CSIP ideology

+0.15

More liberal than 100% of House Republicans · ± 0.05

Raised, 2026

$103.4K

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 217th of 220

Personal attacks

0%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 216th of 221

Extreme labels

0%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 216th of 221

From Northern Mariana Islands, 2026

81%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 16th of 216 House Republicans

Credit claiming

20%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 202nd of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What King-Hinds says

King-Hinds attacks opponents personally less than 97% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 543 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 216th of 221.

An AI model reads each of King-Hinds’s 543 statements in the 119th Congress (469 posts on X, 35 newsletters, 22 press releases, 17 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%
King-Hinds
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion344 statements
63%
68%
163rd of 221
Credit claiming109 statements
20%
37%
202nd of 221
Policy criticism49 statements
9%
15%
182nd of 221
Bipartisanship37 statements
7%
9%
124th of 221
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
216th of 221
Show the data
King-Hinds's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowKing-HindsPeers
Policy discussion63%68%
Credit claiming20%37%
Policy criticism9%15%
Bipartisanship7%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
543

statements classified

469 posts on X, 35 newsletters, 22 press releases, 17 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 469 (86.4%)posts on X 469newsletters: 35 (6.4%)press releases: 22 (4.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 17 (3.1%)
Show the data
King-Hinds's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X469
newsletters35
press releases22
Congressional Record speeches17
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

King-Hinds used no extreme labels in 543 statements. The peer average is 3.0%.

No extreme labels in this window.

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

No targets recorded.

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: 82025-02: 242025-03: 302025-04: 142025-05: 202025-06: 52025-07: 12025-08: 162025-09: 372025-10: 242025-11: 352025-12: 262026-01: 272026-02: 282026-03: 422026-04: 172026-05: 612026-06: 492026-07: 352026-08: 222026-09: 172026-10: 5peak 61 · May ’26Personal attackspeak 0.0% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 23.5% · Apr ’26 · latest 23.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-02: 8.3% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-03: 13.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-04: 0.0% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-08: 0.0% of 16Policy criticism, 2025-09: 0.0% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-12: 0.0% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-01: 18.5% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-02: 17.9% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-03: 7.1% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-04: 23.5% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-05: 6.6% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-06: 12.2% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-07: 11.4% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-08: 22.7% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-09: 23.5% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 90.2% · May ’26 · latest 82.3%Policy discussion, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-02: 62.5% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-03: 46.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-04: 42.9% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-08: 25.0% of 16Policy discussion, 2025-09: 54.0% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-10: 33.3% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-11: 48.6% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-12: 42.3% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-01: 66.7% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-02: 67.9% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-03: 73.8% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-04: 76.5% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-05: 90.2% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-06: 63.3% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-07: 74.3% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-08: 72.7% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.3% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 17.6% · Sep ’26 · latest 17.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 10.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 0.0% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 16Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.4% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 3.9% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.8% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 16.7% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.9% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 6.6% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.5% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 17.6% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 52.9% · Sep ’26 · latest 52.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-02: 0.0% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-03: 26.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-04: 7.1% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-05: 5.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-08: 0.0% of 16Credit claiming, 2025-09: 13.5% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-10: 4.2% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-11: 11.4% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-12: 11.5% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-01: 29.6% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-02: 14.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-03: 26.2% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-04: 29.4% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-05: 21.3% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-06: 28.6% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-07: 25.7% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-08: 36.4% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-09: 52.9% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 0.0% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for King-Hinds, 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 ’258— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Feb ’25240.0%8.3%62.5%4.2%0.0%0.0%
Mar ’25300.0%13.3%46.7%10.0%26.7%0.0%
Apr ’25140.0%0.0%42.9%0.0%7.1%0.0%
May ’25200.0%5.0%75.0%5.0%5.0%0.0%
Jun ’255— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jul ’251— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Aug ’25160.0%0.0%25.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Sep ’25370.0%0.0%54.0%5.4%13.5%0.0%
Oct ’25240.0%0.0%33.3%0.0%4.2%0.0%
Nov ’25350.0%0.0%48.6%5.7%11.4%0.0%
Dec ’25260.0%0.0%42.3%3.9%11.5%0.0%
Jan ’26270.0%18.5%66.7%14.8%29.6%0.0%
Feb ’26280.0%17.9%67.9%0.0%14.3%0.0%
Mar ’26420.0%7.1%73.8%16.7%26.2%0.0%
Apr ’26170.0%23.5%76.5%5.9%29.4%0.0%
May ’26610.0%6.6%90.2%6.6%21.3%0.0%
Jun ’26490.0%12.2%63.3%8.2%28.6%0.0%
Jul ’26350.0%11.4%74.3%5.7%25.7%0.0%
Aug ’26220.0%22.7%72.7%4.5%36.4%0.0%
Sep ’26170.0%23.5%82.3%17.6%52.9%0.0%
Oct ’265— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 4 months are hatched here.

In King-Hinds’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Catch Up With Kim - Weekly E-Newsletter, September 28, 2026 [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1783977471660-Logo%20OGG.png] [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/126416/1790365201694-Picture0.png] Let's Catch Up - September 28, 2026 $7.1 Million For VA Cemeteries in Tinian and Rota [https…

Sep 27, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Education; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Health; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works

Policy criticism

Catch Up With Kim - Weekly E-Newsletter, October 12, 2026 [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1783977471660-Logo%20OGG.png] [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/126416/1791764314405-Dear%20Friends_-4.png] Let's Catch Up - October 12, 2026 [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/126416/1791762…

Oct 12, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Health; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Families; Environmental Protection; Armed Forces and National Security

Credit claiming

Catch Up With Kim - Weekly E-Newsletter, October 26, 2026 [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1783977471660-Logo%20OGG.png] [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/126416/1792979394425-Picture1.png] Let's Catch Up - October 26, 2026 Bringing Congress Face-To-Face with Our Education Challenges…

Oct 26, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Energy; Families; Health; Labor and Employment; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Transportation and Public Works

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.

No statements in this category in this window.

All 543 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: 469 posts on X, 35 newsletters, 22 press releases, 17 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what King-Hinds talks about most: 35% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 63rd 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 King-Hinds talks about. The bills King-Hinds sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What King-Hinds talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%38%
King-Hinds
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security120 statements
35%
24%
Emergency Management84 statements
24%
6%
Economics and Public Finance81 statements
24%
19%
Commerce75 statements
22%
9%
Health75 statements
22%
15%
Show the data
Policy areas King-Hinds talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowKing-HindsPeers
Armed Forces and National Security35%24%
Emergency Management24%6%
Economics and Public Finance24%19%
Commerce22%9%
Health22%15%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of King-Hinds’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 38%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 35% (House Republicans 24%)35%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 24% (House Republicans 8%)24%Emergency ManagementEmergency Management, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 6%)24%Emergency Management, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 1%)3%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 19%)24%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 9%)22%Commerce, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 2%)8%HealthHealth, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 15%)22%Health, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 11%)9%
Show the data
King-Hinds'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 Security35%24%24%8%
Emergency Management24%6%3%1%
Economics and Public Finance24%19%0%2%
Commerce22%9%8%2%
Health22%15%9%11%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 63rd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

King-Hinds sits at +0.15 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 100% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.10 to +0.20, which understates the uncertainty; from 89 donors and 66 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”.

+0.15

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.10 to +0.20. From 89 donors and 66 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0King-Hinds +0.1House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is King-Hinds, 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 King-Hinds’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 King-Hinds sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0King-Hinds +0.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
King-Hinds's CSIP score of +0.15 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of King-Hinds
House Republicans221+1.00%
All House439+0.349%
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 King-Hinds 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 King-Hinds.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

King-Hinds raised $103.4K in the 2026 cycle, 4.8% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 2.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 81% of itemized individual money came from Northern Mariana Islands.

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
$103.4K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 20 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): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $35.6K (34.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $875 (0.8%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)PACs and other committees: $55.3K (53.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $11.7K (11.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)34 squares$35.6K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$875
  • PACs and other committees54 squares$55.3K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)11 squares$11.7K
Show the data
Sources of King-Hinds's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$35.6K34.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$8750.8%
PACs and other committees$55.3K53.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$11.7K11.3%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $86.4K$86.4K20242026 cycle: $103.4K$103.4K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
King-Hinds's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$86.4K
2026 cycle$103.4K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 81% came from Northern Mariana Islands.

  1. Northern Mariana Islands$19.7K
  2. Louisiana$3,500
  3. Guam$750
  4. Florida$500

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%
King-Hinds
Median
2026
2%
9%
2024
24%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowKing-HindsMedian
2026 cycle2%9%
2024 cycle24%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: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $3,500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: $500FL
Show the data
King-Hinds's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Louisiana$3,500
Florida$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
20

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

81%

from Northern Mariana Islands

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 Northern Mariana Islands. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 83%83%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.0%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 15%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of King-Hinds's itemized donors in 2026, from 0.00 to +0.75: 83% between 0.00 and +0.25, 15% between +0.50 and +0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2583%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.0%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7515%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of King-Hinds’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; King-Hinds’s own score is +0.15.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. MANAGER$3,600 5 donors
  2. RETIRED$2,041 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  2. AMERICA'S BOLD ERA PAC$5,000
  3. ELECTING MAJORITY MAKING EFFECTIVE REPUBLICANS PAC$5,000
  4. JIM JORDAN FOR CONGRESS$4,000
  5. DEPENDABLE CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP PAC$2,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

King-Hinds voted with the majority of House Republicans on 53% of party-line votes and missed 22% of 85 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, King-Hinds voted against the majority of House Republicans 23 times.

85 roll calls King-Hinds 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 King-Hinds 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 53%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 220th of 221. 85 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is King-Hinds, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 50% to 100% to show the gap.

50%100%
King-Hinds
Peers
Rank
Attendance
78%
96.3%
219th of 221
Party unity
53%
97.1%
220th of 221
Show the data
King-Hinds's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowKing-HindsPeers
Attendance78%96.3%
Party unity53%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

Roll calls the lab flags as key

No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.

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 King-Hinds most often

  1. Thomas Kean Jr.R65 shared votes86%
  2. Nicole MalliotakisR66 shared votes85%
  3. David JoyceR63 shared votes84%
  4. Steve WomackR63 shared votes83%
  5. Tom ColeR66 shared votes82%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as King-Hinds least often

  1. Thomas MassieR66 shared votes35%
  2. Warren DavidsonR65 shared votes40%
  3. Josh BrecheenR64 shared votes41%
  4. Eric BurlisonR65 shared votes42%
  5. Chip RoyR66 shared votes42%
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

King-Hinds sponsored 21 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 152 others. 9.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 146th of 216).

The bills King-Hinds 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

Sponsored21 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2121Sponsored, In committee: 2121Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored152 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 152152Cosponsored, In committee: 152152Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1616Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills King-Hinds sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2121200
Cosponsored1521521622
How to read the blocks

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

9.5%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 146th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. James (Jim) Moylan43
  2. Aumua Amata Radewagen38
  3. Ed Case26
  4. Jill Tokuda21
  5. Donald Davis15
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 King-Hinds’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.Res. 1593Recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10594Reliable Artificial Intelligence Research Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Homeland Security. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1574Expressing support for the recognition of September 27, 2026, to October 3, 2026, as "Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Week".CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 119Celebrating the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the Peace Corps, and commending its volunteers and contributions to global peace, friendship, and development.CosponsorSep 21, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 21, 2026
H.R. 10419SMILE for Veterans ActCosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 88 times in 90 days. King-Hinds’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images King-Hinds posted on Sep 18, 2026.

The lab crawls King-Hinds’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 King-Hinds 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 King-Hinds posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • An informational government graphic announcing federal FEMA funding to support emergency response following Super Typhoon Sinlaku. It has a red headline banner, several paragraphs of text, a faded U.S. flag background, and agency and office logos near the bottom.
    An informational government graphic announcing federal FEMA funding to support emergency response following Super Typhoon Sinlaku. It has a red headline banner, several paragraphs of text, a faded U.S. flag background, and agency and office logos near the bottom.View post
  • A red promotional flyer for a congressional app competition. It features an American flag, a Capitol building emblem, competition details arranged in bullet points, and a smartphone displaying a humanoid robot with a glowing lightbulb head and a QR code. There is text throughout the image.
    A red promotional flyer for a congressional app competition. It features an American flag, a Capitol building emblem, competition details arranged in bullet points, and a smartphone displaying a humanoid robot with a glowing lightbulb head and a QR code. There is text throughout the image.View post
  • An informational poster about congressional nominations to U.S. service academies, featuring academy emblems across the top, eligibility requirements in a bulleted list, and an application deadline in a red banner at the bottom. Text appears throughout.
    An informational poster about congressional nominations to U.S. service academies, featuring academy emblems across the top, eligibility requirements in a bulleted list, and an application deadline in a red banner at the bottom. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A promotional poster for a congressional high school art competition. It has a large painted portrait of a woman wearing a red flower crown, a small inset photo of several people, a QR code, and a pale background with a U.S. flag motif. The poster includes a substantial amount of text.
    A promotional poster for a congressional high school art competition. It has a large painted portrait of a woman wearing a red flower crown, a small inset photo of several people, a QR code, and a pale background with a U.S. flag motif. The poster includes a substantial amount of text.View post
  • An informational poster about a youth achievement award, with explanatory sections and lists on a dark blue background. A large gold medal with a red, white, and blue ribbon appears on the right. There is text throughout the poster.
    An informational poster about a youth achievement award, with explanatory sections and lists on a dark blue background. A large gold medal with a red, white, and blue ribbon appears on the right. There is text throughout the poster.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 King-Hinds 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
K000404
Bioguide
K000404
FEC candidate ids
H4MP01022

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