Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Louisiana’s 5th district

Serving since Apr 14, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide L000595FEC H2LA05126, S6LA00664

Portrait of Julia Letlow, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$6.7M
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of House Republicans

The median for House Republicans is $2.2M. Ranks 24th of 220, where 1st raised the most. 927 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Letlow’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Republicans. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 49% of Letlow’s statements claim credit, in the top quarter of House Republicans (average 37%). Letlow missed 5.9% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 96.3%).

The measures on which Letlow 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.

Party unity

99.5%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 18th of 221 · 7 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Raised, 2026

$6.7M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 24th of 220

Credit claiming

49%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 33rd of 221

Attendance

94.0%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 188th of 221 · 674 roll calls

Bipartisanship

3.8%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 183rd of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.82

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Letlow says

Letlow attacks opponents personally less than 79% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.3% of 1,174 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 176th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Letlow’s 1,174 statements in the 119th Congress (1,067 posts on X, 73 press releases, 26 newsletters, 8 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%
Letlow
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion899 statements
77%
68%
41st of 221
Credit claiming579 statements
49%
37%
33rd of 221
Policy criticism116 statements
10%
15%
172nd of 221
Bipartisanship44 statements
4%
9%
183rd of 221
Personal attacks4 statements
0%
2%
176th of 221
Show the data
Letlow's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowLetlowPeers
Policy discussion77%68%
Credit claiming49%37%
Policy criticism10%15%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,174

statements classified

1,067 posts on X, 73 press releases, 26 newsletters, 8 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,067 (90.9%)posts on X 1,067press releases: 73 (6.2%)newsletters: 26 (2.2%)Congressional Record speeches: 8 (0.7%)
Show the data
Letlow's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,067
press releases73
newsletters26
Congressional Record speeches8
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Letlow used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, 31% of the peer average. 11 statements, most often aimed at Biden Green New Deal; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”2
  2. “far left”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Biden Green New Deal1
  2. far-left1
  3. Hollywood TV executives1
  4. Left1
  5. left-wing activists1
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: 482025-02: 382025-03: 552025-04: 572025-05: 602025-06: 622025-07: 902025-08: 512025-09: 522025-10: 472025-11: 442025-12: 342026-01: 532026-02: 812026-03: 532026-04: 682026-05: 602026-06: 672026-07: 442026-08: 362026-09: 422026-10: 32peak 90 · Jul ’25Personal attackspeak 2.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.1% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-03: 1.8% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.1% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.5% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 32Policy criticismpeak 38.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 3.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 14.6% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-02: 13.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-03: 9.1% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-04: 12.3% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-05: 10.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-06: 9.7% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-07: 1.1% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-08: 5.9% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-09: 5.8% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-10: 38.3% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-11: 13.6% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-12: 11.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.3% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-03: 20.8% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.8% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-06: 6.0% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-07: 6.8% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-08: 2.8% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-09: 2.4% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-10: 3.1% of 32Policy discussionpeak 93.8% · Oct ’26 · latest 93.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 58.3% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-02: 76.3% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-03: 63.6% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-04: 59.7% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-05: 76.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-06: 67.7% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-07: 73.3% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-08: 80.4% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-09: 71.2% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-10: 78.7% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-11: 72.7% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-12: 73.5% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-01: 90.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-02: 80.3% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-03: 75.5% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.9% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-05: 78.3% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-06: 83.6% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-07: 88.6% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-08: 91.7% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-09: 81.0% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.8% of 32Bipartisanshippeak 11.8% · Dec ’25 · latest 3.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 6.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 5.5% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 8.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 2.2% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 2.0% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.7% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 2.1% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.4% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 11.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 1.2% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 0.0% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.9% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 1.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 3.0% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.1% of 32Credit claimingpeak 75.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 75.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 47.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-02: 52.6% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-03: 34.5% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-04: 36.8% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-05: 41.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-06: 22.6% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-07: 61.1% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-08: 49.0% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-09: 44.2% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-10: 46.8% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-11: 47.7% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-12: 47.1% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-01: 49.1% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-02: 55.6% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-03: 45.3% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-04: 50.0% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-05: 58.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-06: 58.2% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-07: 47.7% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-08: 58.3% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-09: 61.9% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-10: 75.0% of 32Extreme labelspeak 5.0% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.6% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.1% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.5% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-05: 5.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 32Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Letlow, 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 ’25482.1%14.6%58.3%6.3%47.9%0.0%
Feb ’25380.0%13.2%76.3%0.0%52.6%0.0%
Mar ’25551.8%9.1%63.6%5.5%34.5%0.0%
Apr ’25570.0%12.3%59.7%8.8%36.8%0.0%
May ’25600.0%10.0%76.7%11.7%41.7%0.0%
Jun ’25620.0%9.7%67.7%0.0%22.6%1.6%
Jul ’25900.0%1.1%73.3%2.2%61.1%1.1%
Aug ’25510.0%5.9%80.4%2.0%49.0%0.0%
Sep ’25520.0%5.8%71.2%7.7%44.2%0.0%
Oct ’25472.1%38.3%78.7%2.1%46.8%0.0%
Nov ’25440.0%13.6%72.7%11.4%47.7%0.0%
Dec ’25340.0%11.8%73.5%11.8%47.1%0.0%
Jan ’26530.0%0.0%90.6%0.0%49.1%1.9%
Feb ’26810.0%12.3%80.3%1.2%55.6%1.2%
Mar ’26530.0%20.8%75.5%0.0%45.3%1.9%
Apr ’26681.5%11.8%80.9%5.9%50.0%1.5%
May ’26600.0%10.0%78.3%1.7%58.3%5.0%
Jun ’26670.0%6.0%83.6%3.0%58.2%3.0%
Jul ’26440.0%6.8%88.6%0.0%47.7%0.0%
Aug ’26360.0%2.8%91.7%0.0%58.3%0.0%
Sep ’26420.0%2.4%81.0%0.0%61.9%0.0%
Oct ’26320.0%3.1%93.8%3.1%75.0%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 Letlow’s words

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

Bipartisanship

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

Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

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

Apr 27, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Jimmy Kimmel · Source

Extreme label

Fighting for Louisiana | A Note From the Desk of Congresswoman Letlow As recovery efforts begin in Louisiana following the heartbreaking floods in Central and South Louisiana, I'd like to extend my prayers to those who were impacted. I have visited Avoyelles Parish to see the damage, and I'm workin…

Jun 26, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Emergency Management; Immigration; Education; Taxation; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “radical” aimed at Washington Democrats

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Jimmy KimmelSource

  2. Press releases

    Letlow Provides Update on Government Shutdown WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman and House Appropriations Committee member Julia Letlow today released the following statement after a lapse in funding to operate the federal government. “The House did our job two weeks ago to keep the government open for the taxpayers it serves. I’m disappointed that Senate Democrats have chosen to needlessly shut down the government ove…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · Agriculture and Food · Labor and Employment · Finance and Financial Sector · target: Senate DemocratsSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Energy · target: SecGranholmSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Energy · target: Joe BidenSource

All 1,174 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: 1,067 posts on X, 73 press releases, 26 newsletters, 8 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Letlow talks about most: 18% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 144th 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 Letlow talks about. The bills Letlow sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Letlow talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Letlow
Peers
Economics and Public Finance160 statements
18%
19%
Education155 statements
17%
8%
Agriculture and Food149 statements
17%
9%
Emergency Management103 statements
11%
6%
Government Operations and Politics100 statements
11%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Letlow talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowLetlowPeers
Economics and Public Finance18%19%
Education17%8%
Agriculture and Food17%9%
Emergency Management11%6%
Government Operations and Politics11%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Letlow’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%EducationEducation, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 8%)17%Education, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 3%)8%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 9%)17%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 3%)18%Emergency ManagementEmergency Management, talks about: 11% (House Republicans 6%)11%Emergency Management, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 1%)2%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 11% (House Republicans 19%)11%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 12%)8%
Show the data
Letlow's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance18%19%0%2%
Education17%8%8%3%
Agriculture and Food17%9%18%3%
Emergency Management11%6%2%1%
Government Operations and Politics11%19%8%12%
0.63

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 144th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Letlow sits at +0.82 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 76% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.80 to +0.84, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,499 donors and 2,730 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”.

+0.82

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.80 to +0.84. From 1,499 donors and 2,730 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Letlow, 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 Letlow’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 Letlow sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Letlow +0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Letlow's CSIP score of +0.82 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Letlow
House Republicans221+1.024%
All House439+0.362%
How to read the strips

Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Letlow 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 Letlow.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Letlow raised $6.7M in the 2026 cycle, 3.1 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 7.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 60% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.

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
$6.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 927 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (31.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.3K (2.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.3K (2.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.3K (2.6%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)PACs and other committees: $2.0M (30.3%)Party committees: $62.0K (0.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.3M (34.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)32 squares$2.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$175.3K
  • PACs and other committees30 squares$2.0M
  • Party committees1 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)34 squares$2.3M
Show the data
Sources of Letlow's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.1M31.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$175.3K2.6%
PACs and other committees$2.0M30.3%
Party committees$62.0K0.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$2.3M34.5%
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: $2.8M$2.8M20222024 cycle: $2.6M$2.6M20242026 cycle: $6.7M$6.7M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Letlow's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$2.8M
2024 cycle$2.6M
2026 cycle$6.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 60% came from Louisiana.

  1. Louisiana$1.1M
  2. Virginia$131.7K
  3. District of Columbia$109.5K
  4. Texas$91.5K
  5. California$71.1K

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%
Letlow
Median
2026
8%
9%
2024
4%
9%
2022
9%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowLetlowMedian
2026 cycle8%9%
2024 cycle4%9%
2022 cycle9%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $500NHWashington: $8,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $250MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $14.0KILWisconsin: $797WIMichigan: $2,500MINew York: $18.8KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $2,160MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $3,737NVWyoming: $14.0KWYSouth Dakota: $10.5KSDIowa: $500IAIndiana: $15.0KINOhio: $5,500OHPennsylvania: $7,125PANew Jersey: $5,439NJConnecticut: $5,250CTCalifornia: $71.1KCAUtah: $500UTColorado: $4,935CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $10.1KMOKentucky: $7,000KYWest Virginia: $10.5KWVVirginia: $131.7KVAMaryland: $55.3KMDDelaware: $4,500DEArizona: $2,084AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $3,906ARTennessee: $3,396TNNorth Carolina: $10.8KNCSouth Carolina: $9,500SCDistrict of Columbia: $109.5KDCOklahoma: $3,250OKLouisiana: $1.1MLAMississippi: $17.4KMSAlabama: $24.1KALGeorgia: $4,119GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $91.5KTXFlorida: $61.9KFL
Show the data
Letlow's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Louisiana$1.1M
Virginia$131.7K
District of Columbia$109.5K
Texas$91.5K
California$71.1K
Florida$61.9K
Maryland$55.3K
Alabama$24.1K
New York$18.8K
Mississippi$17.4K
Indiana$15.0K
Illinois$14.0K
Wyoming$14.0K
North Carolina$10.8K
South Dakota$10.5K
West Virginia$10.5K
Missouri$10.1K
South Carolina$9,500
Washington$8,000
Pennsylvania$7,125
Kentucky$7,000
Ohio$5,500
New Jersey$5,439
Connecticut$5,250
Colorado$4,935
Delaware$4,500
Georgia$4,119
Arkansas$3,906
Nevada$3,737
Tennessee$3,396
Oklahoma$3,250
Michigan$2,500
Massachusetts$2,160
Arizona$2,084
Wisconsin$797
New Hampshire$500
Iowa$500
Utah$500
Montana$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NebraskaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
HawaiiNo data
927

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

60%

from Louisiana

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 Louisiana. 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: 0.7%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.8%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 36%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 44%44%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 3.2%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Letlow's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 6.8% between +0.25 and +0.50, 36% between +0.50 and +0.75, 44% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.7%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7536%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0044%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.253.2%
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 Letlow’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Letlow’s own score is +0.82.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CEO$160.3K 50 donors
  2. RETIRED$153.8K 139 donors
  3. OWNER$144.0K 55 donors
  4. HOMEMAKER$133.5K 32 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$117.8K 65 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GM PAC)$17.5K
  3. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$15.0K
  4. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATION PAC$15.0K
  5. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. OCHSNER HEALTH$43.0K 12 donors
  2. MMR GROUP$28.0K 3 donors
  3. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$20.5K 15 donors
  4. LEMOINE$18.0K 3 donors
  5. JONES WALKER, LLP$16.8K 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Letlow voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 5.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Letlow voted against the majority of House Republicans 7 times.

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

7

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 18th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Letlow
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.0%
96.3%
188th of 221
Party unity
99.5%
97.1%
18th of 221
Show the data
Letlow's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowLetlowPeers
Attendance94.0%96.3%
Party unity99.5%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 Letlow most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR490 shared votes100%
  2. Bryan SteilR629 shared votes99%
  3. Matt Van EppsR332 shared votes99%
  4. Claudia TenneyR629 shared votes99%
  5. Brad FinstadR628 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Letlow least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD359 shared votes21%
  2. Delia RamirezD602 shared votes22%
  3. Rashida TlaibD619 shared votes22%
  4. Frederica WilsonD468 shared votes23%
  5. Gregorio CasarD541 shared votes24%
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

Letlow sponsored 21 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 149 others. 9.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 146th of 216).

The bills Letlow 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: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored149 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 149149Cosponsored, In committee: 149149Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2323Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Letlow sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2121100
Cosponsored1491492343
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Letlow sponsored, ochre blocks bills Letlow 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 Letlow, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Barry Moore12
  2. Cleo Fields11
  3. Troy Carter11
  4. Mary Miller11
  5. Randy Weber Sr.10
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 Letlow’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. 10763Know Your Risk ActSponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 6, 2026
H.Res. 1610Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "World Menopause Awareness Month" and for global awareness and access to care during menopausal transition and post-menopause.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10542Combating Pasture Mealybug ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1564Recognizing September 17, 2026, as National Teach Ag Day.CosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 17, 2026
H.R. 10413To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the qualified elementary and secondary education scholarships credit limit for married taxpayers filing a joint return.CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 43 times in 90 days. Letlow’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Letlow posted on Oct 19, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    letlow.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    31

    pages crawled

    43

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.julialetlow.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    12

    pages crawled

    10

    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 Letlow posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A pink breast cancer awareness poster featuring a large awareness ribbon and bold central lettering. A small government-style emblem appears near the bottom.
    A pink breast cancer awareness poster featuring a large awareness ribbon and bold central lettering. A small government-style emblem appears near the bottom.View post
  • A political results infographic featuring a smiling woman in a light-colored suit on a blue background with red and blue banners, a faint eagle motif, and a circular congressional seal. It includes text and figures about September casework, money returned to constituents, and cases completed, plus office contact information.
    A political results infographic featuring a smiling woman in a light-colored suit on a blue background with red and blue banners, a faint eagle motif, and a circular congressional seal. It includes text and figures about September casework, money returned to constituents, and cases completed, plus office contact information.View post
  • A pink public-awareness graphic featuring a large awareness ribbon on the left and bold white lettering on the right. A circular congressional seal appears near the bottom right.
    A pink public-awareness graphic featuring a large awareness ribbon on the left and bold white lettering on the right. A circular congressional seal appears near the bottom right.View post
  • A woman speaks at a clear podium while three men sit beside her at an event under a tent. An American flag is visible at the left, and audience members are seen in the foreground. There is some text on a small item near the bottom left.
    A woman speaks at a clear podium while three men sit beside her at an event under a tent. An American flag is visible at the left, and audience members are seen in the foreground. There is some text on a small item near the bottom left.View post
  • A woman speaks at a podium to a seated audience at an outdoor event beneath a large tent. An American flag stands nearby, with construction equipment and a worksite visible outside. Some text appears in the background.
    A woman speaks at a podium to a seated audience at an outdoor event beneath a large tent. An American flag stands nearby, with construction equipment and a worksite visible outside. Some text appears in the background.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 Letlow 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
L000595
Bioguide
L000595
FEC candidate ids
H2LA05126, S6LA00664

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