Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, New York’s 11th district

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

Bioguide M000317FEC H0NY11078

Portrait of Nicole Malliotakis, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
30
votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 93.7%, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 97.1%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

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 Malliotakis voted with the majority of House Republicans; it is ranked among House Republicans. The count covers every roll call where Malliotakis voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Malliotakis sits at +0.63 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 89% of House Republicans. 21% of Malliotakis’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of House Republicans (average 15%).

The measures on which Malliotakis 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

93.7%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 206th of 221 · 30 votes against the majority of House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.63

More liberal than 89% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Policy criticism

21%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 40th of 221

Policy discussion

76%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 43rd of 221

Credit claiming

46%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 48th of 221

Out of committee

7.1%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 169th of 216

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Malliotakis says

Malliotakis attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.4% of 1,892 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 96th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Malliotakis’s 1,892 statements in the 119th Congress (1,678 posts on X, 140 press releases, 44 newsletters, 30 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%
Malliotakis
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,447 statements
76%
68%
43rd of 221
Credit claiming879 statements
46%
37%
48th of 221
Policy criticism390 statements
21%
15%
40th of 221
Bipartisanship238 statements
13%
9%
58th of 221
Personal attacks27 statements
1%
2%
96th of 221
Show the data
Malliotakis's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowMalliotakisPeers
Policy discussion76%68%
Credit claiming46%37%
Policy criticism21%15%
Bipartisanship13%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,892

statements classified

1,678 posts on X, 140 press releases, 44 newsletters, 30 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,678 (88.7%)posts on X 1,678press releases: 140 (7.4%)newsletters: 44 (2.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 30 (1.6%)
Show the data
Malliotakis's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,678
press releases140
newsletters44
Congressional Record speeches30
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Malliotakis used extreme labels in 3.0% of statements, close to the peer average. 56 statements, most often aimed at Mamdani; peers 3.0%.

  1. “communist”28
  2. “radical”14
  3. “extreme”3
  4. “far left”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Mamdani6
  2. Democrats5
  3. Socialism3
  4. communist2
  5. NYC policies2
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: 962025-02: 952025-03: 1022025-04: 982025-05: 1112025-06: 912025-07: 1052025-08: 622025-09: 842025-10: 902025-11: 642025-12: 862026-01: 792026-02: 822026-03: 1002026-04: 792026-05: 742026-06: 802026-07: 682026-08: 632026-09: 1002026-10: 83peak 111 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 5.1% · Apr ’26 · latest 1.2%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.1% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.1% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.0% of 102Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.0% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.8% of 111Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.1% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.9% of 105Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.6% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.5% of 79Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2026-04: 5.1% of 79Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.4% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-06: 1.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-08: 3.2% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-09: 2.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2026-10: 1.2% of 83Policy criticismpeak 40.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 10.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 37.5% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-02: 30.5% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-03: 18.6% of 102Policy criticism, 2025-04: 17.3% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-05: 15.3% of 111Policy criticism, 2025-06: 18.7% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-07: 20.0% of 105Policy criticism, 2025-08: 17.7% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-09: 19.1% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-10: 40.0% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-11: 29.7% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-12: 15.1% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.1% of 79Policy criticism, 2026-02: 24.4% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-03: 25.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2026-04: 16.5% of 79Policy criticism, 2026-05: 14.9% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-06: 21.3% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-07: 22.1% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-08: 17.5% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.8% of 83Policy discussionpeak 87.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 80.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.0% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-02: 75.8% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-03: 76.5% of 102Policy discussion, 2025-04: 76.5% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-05: 81.1% of 111Policy discussion, 2025-06: 74.7% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-07: 77.1% of 105Policy discussion, 2025-08: 71.0% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.8% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-10: 71.1% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-11: 57.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-12: 86.1% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-01: 82.3% of 79Policy discussion, 2026-02: 78.0% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-03: 67.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2026-04: 82.3% of 79Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.7% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-06: 71.3% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.5% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-08: 87.3% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-09: 81.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2026-10: 80.7% of 83Bipartisanshippeak 24.5% · Mar ’25 · latest 6.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 9.4% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 13.7% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 24.5% of 102Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 15.3% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.7% of 111Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 16.5% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.6% of 105Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 17.7% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 21.4% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 14.4% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 3.1% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 17.4% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 12.7% of 79Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.4% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 11.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 13.9% of 79Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.8% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 7.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.3% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 6.3% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 16.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 6.0% of 83Credit claimingpeak 72.1% · Dec ’25 · latest 49.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 51.0% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-02: 51.6% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-03: 48.0% of 102Credit claiming, 2025-04: 45.9% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-05: 53.1% of 111Credit claiming, 2025-06: 45.1% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-07: 55.2% of 105Credit claiming, 2025-08: 50.0% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-09: 48.8% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-10: 27.8% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-11: 28.1% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-12: 72.1% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-01: 45.6% of 79Credit claiming, 2026-02: 42.7% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-03: 32.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2026-04: 36.7% of 79Credit claiming, 2026-05: 51.3% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-06: 51.2% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-07: 36.8% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-08: 42.9% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-09: 48.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2026-10: 49.4% of 83Extreme labelspeak 17.2% · Nov ’25 · latest 1.2%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.1% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.9% of 102Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.7% of 111Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.1% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.9% of 105Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.2% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.3% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-11: 17.2% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.3% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.3% of 79Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.9% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.5% of 79Extreme labels, 2026-05: 2.7% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.8% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-07: 11.8% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-08: 3.2% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2026-10: 1.2% of 83Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Malliotakis, 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 ’25962.1%37.5%76.0%9.4%51.0%3.1%
Feb ’25952.1%30.5%75.8%13.7%51.6%0.0%
Mar ’251022.0%18.6%76.5%24.5%48.0%2.9%
Apr ’25981.0%17.3%76.5%15.3%45.9%0.0%
May ’251111.8%15.3%81.1%11.7%53.1%2.7%
Jun ’25911.1%18.7%74.7%16.5%45.1%1.1%
Jul ’251052.9%20.0%77.1%8.6%55.2%0.9%
Aug ’25621.6%17.7%71.0%17.7%50.0%0.0%
Sep ’25840.0%19.1%73.8%21.4%48.8%1.2%
Oct ’25900.0%40.0%71.1%14.4%27.8%3.3%
Nov ’25640.0%29.7%57.8%3.1%28.1%17.2%
Dec ’25860.0%15.1%86.1%17.4%72.1%2.3%
Jan ’26792.5%10.1%82.3%12.7%45.6%1.3%
Feb ’26820.0%24.4%78.0%2.4%42.7%4.9%
Mar ’261000.0%25.0%67.0%11.0%32.0%3.0%
Apr ’26795.1%16.5%82.3%13.9%36.7%2.5%
May ’26741.4%14.9%75.7%10.8%51.3%2.7%
Jun ’26801.3%21.3%71.3%7.5%51.2%3.8%
Jul ’26680.0%22.1%76.5%10.3%36.8%11.8%
Aug ’26633.2%17.5%87.3%6.3%42.9%3.2%
Sep ’261002.0%10.0%81.0%16.0%48.0%2.0%
Oct ’26831.2%10.8%80.7%6.0%49.4%1.2%
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 Malliotakis’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Malliotakis, Gottheimer Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Target Car Thefts (STATEN ISLAND, NY) — Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11) and Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05) introduced the bipartisan H.R. 10872, Combatting Auto Robbery at the Source (CARS) Act to combat organized auto theft a…

Oct 23, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Law; target: Eric Adams · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Crime and Law Enforcement; Immigration; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · target: Eric AdamsSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Health · Agriculture and Food · target: Hakeem JeffriesSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, first, let's be clear that socialism is communism light. Socialism is the first step to communism. If anybody doubts what I am saying, just listen to Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union, who proclaimed the goal of socialism is communism. It begins with promises of free programs, government-controlled prices, and punishment of the supposedly wealthy, redistribution of wealth to help every…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Economics and Public Finance · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · extreme label “communist” aimed at socialism · target: DemocratsSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Transportation and Public Works · Crime and Law EnforcementSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Transportation and Public Works · Taxation · Environmental Protection · target: Kathy HochulSource

All 1,892 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: 1,678 posts on X, 140 press releases, 44 newsletters, 30 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Taxation is what Malliotakis talks about most: 20% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 101st 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 Malliotakis talks about. The bills Malliotakis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Malliotakis talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Malliotakis
Peers
Taxation289 statements
20%
10%
Armed Forces and National Security280 statements
19%
24%
Economics and Public Finance264 statements
18%
19%
Health255 statements
18%
15%
Crime and Law Enforcement220 statements
15%
12%
Show the data
Policy areas Malliotakis talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowMalliotakisPeers
Taxation20%10%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%
Economics and Public Finance18%19%
Health18%15%
Crime and Law Enforcement15%12%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Malliotakis’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 onTaxationTaxation, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 10%)20%Taxation, legislates on: 23% (House Republicans 9%)23%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 24%)19%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%HealthHealth, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 15%)18%Health, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 11%)13%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 12%)15%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 9%)7%
Show the data
Malliotakis's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Taxation20%10%23%9%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%7%8%
Economics and Public Finance18%19%0%2%
Health18%15%13%11%
Crime and Law Enforcement15%12%7%9%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 101st of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Malliotakis sits at +0.63 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 89% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.61 to +0.64, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,589 donors and 3,145 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”.

+0.63

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.61 to +0.64. From 4,589 donors and 3,145 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Malliotakis, 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 Malliotakis’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 Malliotakis sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Malliotakis +0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Malliotakis's CSIP score of +0.63 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Malliotakis
House Republicans221+1.010%
All House439+0.355%
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 Malliotakis 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 Malliotakis.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Malliotakis raised $3.3M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 20% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 51% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$3.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 745 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): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (33.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $272.9K (8.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (40.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $612.8K (18.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)33 squares$1.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)8 squares$272.9K
  • PACs and other committees40 squares$1.3M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)19 squares$612.8K
Show the data
Sources of Malliotakis's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.1M33.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$272.9K8.2%
PACs and other committees$1.3M40.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$612.8K18.5%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $3.5M$3.5M20202022 cycle: $4.6M$4.6M20222024 cycle: $3.4M$3.4M20242026 cycle: $3.3M$3.3M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Malliotakis's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.5M
2022 cycle$4.6M
2024 cycle$3.4M
2026 cycle$3.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 51% came from New York.

  1. New York$575.7K
  2. California$159.3K
  3. Florida$90.4K
  4. District of Columbia$72.8K
  5. New Jersey$47.0K

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%
Malliotakis
Median
2026
20%
9%
2024
24%
9%
2022
16%
9%
2020
21%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowMalliotakisMedian
2026 cycle20%9%
2024 cycle24%9%
2022 cycle16%9%
2020 cycle21%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $988WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $125MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $710MNIllinois: $7,070ILWisconsin: $3,750WIMichigan: $425MINew York: $575.7KNYRhode Island: $1,040RIMassachusetts: $10.3KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $275INOhio: $8,102OHPennsylvania: $3,288PANew Jersey: $47.0KNJConnecticut: $5,054CTCalifornia: $159.3KCAUtah: $4,000UTColorado: $25CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $18.0KMOKentucky: $250KYWest Virginia: $250WVVirginia: $36.4KVAMaryland: $13.9KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $2,780AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $1,899TNNorth Carolina: $1,304NCSouth Carolina: $14.2KSCDistrict of Columbia: $72.8KDCOklahoma: $208OKLouisiana: $170LAMississippi: $100MSAlabama: $11.1KALGeorgia: $20.9KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $20.8KTXFlorida: $90.4KFL
Show the data
Malliotakis's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$575.7K
California$159.3K
Florida$90.4K
District of Columbia$72.8K
New Jersey$47.0K
Virginia$36.4K
Georgia$20.9K
Texas$20.8K
Missouri$18.0K
South Carolina$14.2K
Maryland$13.9K
Alabama$11.1K
Massachusetts$10.3K
Ohio$8,102
Illinois$7,070
Connecticut$5,054
Utah$4,000
Wisconsin$3,750
Pennsylvania$3,288
Arizona$2,780
Tennessee$1,899
Kansas$1,500
North Carolina$1,304
Rhode Island$1,040
Washington$988
Minnesota$710
Michigan$425
Indiana$275
Kentucky$250
West Virginia$250
Oklahoma$208
Louisiana$170
Montana$125
Mississippi$100
Colorado$25
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
HawaiiNo data
745

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

51%

from New York

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 New York. 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: 1.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.3%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 4.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 9.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 8.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 48%48%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 21%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 2.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Malliotakis's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 9.5% between 0.00 and +0.25, 8.6% between +0.25 and +0.50, 48% between +0.50 and +0.75, 21% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.3%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.004.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.259.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.508.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7548%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0021%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.252.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Malliotakis’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Malliotakis’s own score is +0.63.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$286.0K 295 donors
  2. CEO$89.1K 27 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$39.1K 36 donors
  4. OWNER$37.2K 17 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE$33.8K 18 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. BUCKEYE LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. CONSTELLATION BRANDS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$12.5K 4 donors
  2. APOLLO$12.0K 5 donors
  3. BROWNSTEIN$3,000 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Malliotakis voted with the majority of House Republicans on 93.7% of party-line votes and missed 1.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Malliotakis voted against the majority of House Republicans 30 times.

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

30

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 93.7%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 206th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Malliotakis
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
96.3%
64th of 221
Party unity
93.7%
97.1%
206th of 221
Show the data
Malliotakis's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowMalliotakisPeers
Attendance98.8%96.3%
Party unity93.7%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 Malliotakis most often

  1. Carlos GimenezR621 shared votes97%
  2. Thomas Kean Jr.R525 shared votes97%
  3. Mike JohnsonR515 shared votes97%
  4. Mario Diaz-BalartR640 shared votes97%
  5. Ken CalvertR664 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Malliotakis least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD650 shared votes28%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD383 shared votes28%
  3. Delia RamirezD633 shared votes29%
  4. Gregorio CasarD569 shared votes30%
  5. Summer LeeD666 shared votes30%
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

Malliotakis sponsored 56 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 407 others. 7.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 169th of 216).

The bills Malliotakis sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.

Bills by stage

Counts for the 119th Congress

Sponsored56 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5656Sponsored, In committee: 5656Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored407 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 407407Cosponsored, In committee: 407407Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4343Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Malliotakis sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5656200
Cosponsored4074074322
How to read the blocks

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

7.1%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 169th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler90
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick67
  3. Claudia Tenney67
  4. Thomas Suozzi52
  5. Josh Gottheimer43
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 Malliotakis’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. 10872Combatting Auto Robbery at the Source Act of 2026CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10832IRAN ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 15, 2026
H.R. 10779To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1905 Route 112 in Medford, New York, as the "Gunnery Sergeant Ruben Santos Post Office Building".CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 9, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 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

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 73 times in 90 days. Malliotakis’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Malliotakis posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Malliotakis’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 Malliotakis 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 Malliotakis posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political promotional graphic featuring a smiling woman in a red suit on a dark blue background. Large stylized lettering and a yellow highlight emphasize a financial result. A campaign logo and social media icons appear along the bottom.
    A political promotional graphic featuring a smiling woman in a red suit on a dark blue background. Large stylized lettering and a yellow highlight emphasize a financial result. A campaign logo and social media icons appear along the bottom.View post
  • Five adults pose for a group photo in front of a green event backdrop. Two people hold a certificate. There is text on the backdrop, badges, and certificate.
    Five adults pose for a group photo in front of a green event backdrop. Two people hold a certificate. There is text on the backdrop, badges, and certificate.View post
  • A group of seven people stand on a stage and cut a long orange ribbon during a ribbon-cutting ceremony. A podium and a large arrangement of colorful flowers are also visible. There is text on a sign attached to the podium.
    A group of seven people stand on a stage and cut a long orange ribbon during a ribbon-cutting ceremony. A podium and a large arrangement of colorful flowers are also visible. There is text on a sign attached to the podium.View post
  • A group of people stand together in a warehouse behind open boxes and bags of food supplies, appearing to take part in a food-packing or distribution event. There is visible text on packaging and name badges.
    A group of people stand together in a warehouse behind open boxes and bags of food supplies, appearing to take part in a food-packing or distribution event. There is visible text on packaging and name badges.View post
  • People at a food tasting or market table examine and discuss many packaged food samples. A woman holds a small item while speaking with a man in a white coat. There is text on labels and signs.
    People at a food tasting or market table examine and discuss many packaged food samples. A woman holds a small item while speaking with a man in a white coat. There is text on labels and signs.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 Malliotakis 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
M000317
Bioguide
M000317
FEC candidate ids
H0NY11078

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