of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom 5% of House Republicans
Attendance 86%; the average among House Republicans is 96.3%. Ranks 214th of 221, where 1st has the highest attendance. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls McCaul could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked among House Republicans. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
0
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. McCaul raised $277.0K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (median $2.2M). McCaul voted against the majority of House Republicans 19 times; party unity 95.5%, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 97.1%).
The measures on which McCaul 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.
Attendance
86%
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 214th of 221 · 674 roll calls
Raised, 2026
$277.0K
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 212th of 220
Party unity
95.5%
House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 194th of 221 · 19 votes against the majority of House Republicans
Policy discussion
78%
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 30th of 221
Credit claiming
48%
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 42nd of 221
CSIP ideology
+0.85
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McCaul, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McCaul is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
McCaul stresses bipartisanship more than 78% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 14% of 932 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 48th of 221.
An AI model reads each of McCaul’s 932 statements in the 119th Congress (714 posts on X, 140 press releases, 68 newsletters, 10 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
McCaul
House Republicans, average of 221
0%20%40%60%80%
McCaul
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion727 statements
78%
68%
30th of 221
Credit claiming443 statements
48%
37%
42nd of 221
Policy criticism145 statements
16%
15%
88th of 221
Bipartisanship126 statements
14%
9%
48th of 221
Personal attacks15 statements
2%
2%
86th of 221
+ Show the data
McCaul's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
Row
McCaul
Peers
Policy discussion
78%
68%
Credit claiming
48%
37%
Policy criticism
16%
15%
Bipartisanship
14%
9%
Personal attacks
2%
2%
932
statements classified
714 posts on X, 140 press releases, 68 newsletters, 10 Congressional Record speeches.
posts on X
press releases
newsletters
Congressional Record speeches
+ Show the data
McCaul's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
714
press releases
140
newsletters
68
Congressional Record speeches
10
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is McCaul; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means McCaul does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
McCaul used extreme labels in 3.2% of statements, close to the peer average. 30 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
“communist”12
“radical”8
“woke”7
“far left”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Democrats2
Biden administration1
Chinese Communist Party1
Democratic Party1
online radicalization1
+ − 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
+ Show the data
Monthly rates for McCaul, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
95
7.4%
35.8%
72.6%
9.5%
47.4%
8.4%
Feb ’25
64
3.1%
20.3%
89.1%
6.3%
56.3%
12.5%
Mar ’25
60
0.0%
11.7%
78.3%
8.3%
43.3%
6.7%
Apr ’25
49
0.0%
10.2%
75.5%
6.1%
44.9%
6.1%
May ’25
74
1.4%
8.1%
73.0%
16.2%
47.3%
1.4%
Jun ’25
59
3.4%
10.2%
76.3%
13.6%
45.8%
0.0%
Jul ’25
60
0.0%
15.0%
78.3%
13.3%
48.3%
0.0%
Aug ’25
31
3.2%
22.6%
74.2%
12.9%
29.0%
0.0%
Sep ’25
38
0.0%
7.9%
65.8%
13.2%
55.3%
0.0%
Oct ’25
34
0.0%
17.6%
85.3%
5.9%
58.8%
2.9%
Nov ’25
28
0.0%
25.0%
57.1%
3.6%
28.6%
3.6%
Dec ’25
37
0.0%
5.4%
86.5%
27.0%
56.8%
0.0%
Jan ’26
35
2.9%
8.6%
88.6%
2.9%
42.9%
0.0%
Feb ’26
46
2.2%
19.6%
69.6%
23.9%
47.8%
0.0%
Mar ’26
38
0.0%
23.7%
81.6%
10.5%
42.1%
2.6%
Apr ’26
34
0.0%
8.8%
79.4%
17.6%
32.4%
0.0%
May ’26
18
0.0%
11.1%
72.2%
27.8%
44.4%
0.0%
Jun ’26
38
0.0%
21.1%
86.8%
26.3%
71.0%
2.6%
Jul ’26
31
0.0%
6.5%
77.4%
16.1%
51.6%
6.5%
Aug ’26
20
0.0%
5.0%
100.0%
15.0%
40.0%
0.0%
Sep ’26
28
0.0%
3.6%
78.6%
25.0%
50.0%
0.0%
Oct ’26
15
0.0%
13.3%
86.7%
20.0%
46.7%
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 McCaul’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
McCaul Questions Acting ICE Director Lyons at Homeland Security Committee Hearing on DHS Oversight
WASHINGTON – Congressman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) — chairman emeritus and current vice chair of the House Committee on HomelandSecurity — questioned Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons at a committee hearin…
Feb 11, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Mayorkas · Source
Bipartisanship
McCaul, Costa, Colleagues Urge "Full and Faithful" Implementation of Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act
WASHINGTON – Today, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Emeritus Michael McCaul (R-Texas) joined Congressman Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and 20 bipartisan colleagues in sending a lett…
Oct 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Energy; Agriculture and Food · Source
Extreme label
Celebrating 250 Years of Our Great Nation!
[https://v7kw59bbb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=93566397-a6b7-49ad-af62-eec2ce85875e&a=1135849712533&c=8856221c-f10e-11f0-a372-024270638287&ch=8856b18c-f10e-11f0-a372-024270638287]
[https://files.constantcontact.com/59b2be57801/13092426-2578-46b4-a0c0-3ae441b0d5b3…
Jul 3, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Health; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
·Press releases
McCaul Questions Acting ICE Director Lyons at Homeland Security Committee Hearing on DHS Oversight
WASHINGTON – Congressman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) — chairman emeritus and current vice chair of the House Committee on HomelandSecurity — questioned Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons at a committee hearing, entitled "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security: ICE, CBP, and USCIS.”
Full Exchange:
McCaul: A decade ago…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security · target: MayorkasSource ↗
·Newsletters
One Step Closer to Defeating Childhood Cancer
[https://v7kw59bbb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=c965279d-253a-4bba-8344-5f1fdff64f12&a=1135849712533&c=8856221c-f10e-11f0-a372-024270638287&ch=8856b18c-f10e-11f0-a372-024270638287]
[https://files.constantcontact.com/59b2be57801/13092426-2578-46b4-a0c0-3ae441b0d5b3.png?rdr=true]
One Step Closer to Defeating Childhood Cancer
Last night, the House passed my Mikaela Naylon Give Ki…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Science, Technology, Communications · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: Bernie Sanders
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Joe BidenSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
ICYMI: Chair Emeritus McCaul on "Fox News Sunday"
WASHINGTON – U.S. Congressman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) — chairman emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees — joined Shannon Bream on "Fox News Sunday" to discuss the latest on the war in Ukraine, the threat posed by Iranian nuclear proliferation, and the Trump administration's efforts to protect the homeland from violent illegal immigrant…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Kilmar GarciaSource ↗
All 932 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: 714 posts on X, 140 press releases, 68 newsletters, 10 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what McCaul talks about most: 54% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 127th 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 McCaul talks about. The bills McCaul sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What McCaul talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
McCaul
House Republicans average
0%15%30%44%59%
McCaul
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security392 statements
54%
24%
International Affairs329 statements
45%
9%
Immigration114 statements
16%
13%
Science, Technology, Communications99 statements
14%
7%
Crime and Law Enforcement93 statements
13%
12%
+ Show the data
Policy areas McCaul talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
Row
McCaul
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security
54%
24%
International Affairs
45%
9%
Immigration
16%
13%
Science, Technology, Communications
14%
7%
Crime and Law Enforcement
13%
12%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of McCaul’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 59%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
Statements
Bills
House Republicans
+ Show the data
McCaul's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
House Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
House Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security
54%
24%
9%
8%
International Affairs
45%
9%
29%
6%
Immigration
16%
13%
9%
5%
Science, Technology, Communications
14%
7%
2%
3%
Crime and Law Enforcement
13%
12%
6%
9%
0.64
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 127th of 221.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means McCaul legislates on exactly the areas McCaul 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 McCaul sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
McCaul sits at +0.85 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 72% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.84 to +0.87, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,212 donors and 7,334 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”.
+0.85
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.84 to +0.87. From 3,212 donors and 7,334 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McCaul, 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 McCaul’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 McCaul sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
+ Show the data
McCaul's CSIP score of +0.85 placed against House Republicans, All House.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of McCaul
House Republicans
221
+1.0
28%
All House
439
+0.3
64%
+ − 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 McCaul 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 McCaul.
McCaul raised $277.0K in the 2026 cycle, 13% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 27% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less.
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.
$277.0K
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 53 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)12 squares$32.1K
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)4 squares$11.7K
PACs and other committees24 squares$67.3K
The candidate’s own money and loans9 squares$25.8K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)51 squares$140.0K
+ Show the data
Sources of McCaul's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$32.1K
11.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$11.7K
4.2%
PACs and other committees
$67.3K
24.3%
The candidate’s own money and loans
$25.8K
9.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$140.0K
50.6%
+ − What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
McCaul's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
Item
Value
2020 cycle
$3.9M
2022 cycle
$2.7M
2024 cycle
$3.1M
2026 cycle
$277.0K
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state.
California$4,389
New York$2,717
Tennessee$1,128
Virginia$1,104
District of Columbia$710
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.
McCaul
Median
0%20%40%60%
McCaul
Median
2026
27%
9%
2024
26%
9%
2022
19%
9%
2020
24%
9%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
Row
McCaul
Median
2026 cycle
27%
9%
2024 cycle
26%
9%
2022 cycle
19%
9%
2020 cycle
24%
9%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$46$4,389no data
+ Show the data
McCaul's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
California
$4,389
New York
$2,717
Tennessee
$1,128
Virginia
$1,104
District of Columbia
$710
Michigan
$465
Wyoming
$294
North Carolina
$291
Pennsylvania
$228
Nevada
$180
New Jersey
$114
Kansas
$72
Washington
$69
Minnesota
$69
Georgia
$53
Oklahoma
$48
Colorado
$46
Alaska
No data
Maine
No data
Vermont
No data
New Hampshire
No data
Idaho
No data
Montana
No data
North Dakota
No data
Illinois
No data
Wisconsin
No data
Rhode Island
No data
Massachusetts
No data
Oregon
No data
South Dakota
No data
Iowa
No data
Indiana
No data
Ohio
No data
Connecticut
No data
Utah
No data
Nebraska
No data
Missouri
No data
Kentucky
No data
West Virginia
No data
Maryland
No data
Delaware
No data
Arizona
No data
New Mexico
No data
Arkansas
No data
South Carolina
No data
Louisiana
No data
Mississippi
No data
Alabama
No data
Hawaii
No data
Texas
No data
Florida
No data
53
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
+ − 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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of McCaul's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.25: 10% between −0.50 and −0.25, 10% between −0.25 and 0.00, 16% between 0.00 and +0.25, 30% between +0.75 and +1.00, 27% between +1.00 and +1.25.
Item
Value
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
10%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
10%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
16%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
4.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
1.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
30%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
27%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of McCaul’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; McCaul’s own score is +0.85.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
RETIRED$10.8K 34 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
A NEW NATION PAC$5,000
BUILDING AMERICA'S REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATION PAC$5,000
DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
DELOITTE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
HONOR COURAGE COMMITMENT PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
McCaul voted with the majority of House Republicans on 95.5% of party-line votes and missed 14% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, McCaul voted against the majority of House Republicans 19 times.
674 roll calls McCaul 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 McCaul voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
19
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 95.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 194th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is McCaul, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
McCaul
House Republicans, average of 221
80%90%100%
McCaul
Peers
Rank
Attendance
86%
96.3%
214th of 221
Party unity
95.5%
97.1%
194th of 221
+ Show the data
McCaul's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
Row
McCaul
Peers
Attendance
86%
96.3%
Party unity
95.5%
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
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
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
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
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
became 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 McCaul most often
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.
McCaul sponsored 14 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 172 others. 14% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 93rd of 216).
The bills McCaul 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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills McCaul sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
14
14
1
0
0
Cosponsored
172
172
26
3
1
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McCaul sponsored, ochre blocks bills McCaul cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
14%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 93rd of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McCaul, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Democrat
Republican
Michael Lawler29
August Pfluger II13
Brian Fitzpatrick13
Maria Salazar12
Don Bacon11
+ − 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 McCaul’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.
Cosponsor
Oct 5, 2026
In committee
Immigration
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026
A site that changed 38 times in 90 days. McCaul’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images McCaul posted on Oct 23, 2026.
The lab crawls McCaul’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 McCaul posts with a vision model.
“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.
Two men in suits sit on a stage at a conference, speaking into microphones. A large blue backdrop features technology-themed graphics and prominent text, with audience members visible in the foreground.View post ↗
02
A large conference audience watches two speakers onstage at a summit. The speakers appear on large screens on either side of a central stage backdrop, which contains text.View post ↗
03
Two men pose for a photograph indoors beside an American flag. One wears a dark business suit and tie; the other wears a light blue shirt, dark trousers, glasses, and an identification badge. Text is visible on the second man's shirt and badge.View post ↗
04
A group of people stand and applaud in a conference room lined with framed portraits. Several people are gathered around a man near the center, and a presentation board is visible at the left. There is some text in the image.View post ↗
05
Four adults and a young girl pose together in a government hearing room. A banner behind them refers to a childhood cancer summit, and digital timers, framed portraits, desks, chairs, and curtains are visible.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.
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 McCaul 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 …”).
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.
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
