Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Health; target: Donald Trump · Source
1.6×
the House Democrat rate of policy criticism
43% of 1,393 statements criticize a policy (597 statements); the average for House Democrats is 28%. Ranks 11th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Moore’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. 13% of Moore’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 23%). 29% of Moore’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Wisconsin, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats.
The measures on which Moore sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy criticism
43%
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 11th of 216
Credit claiming
13%
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 197th of 216
From Wisconsin, 2026
29%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 187th of 214 House Democrats
Personal attacks
11%
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 35th of 216
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.64
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 183rd of 216
CSIP ideology
−1.24
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Moore, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Moore is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Moore says
Moore claims credit less than 90% of House Democrats. Credit claiming in 13% of 1,393 statements, against 23% for the average House Democrat; 197th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Moore’s 1,393 statements in the 119th Congress (1,122 posts on X, 175 press releases, 60 Congressional Record speeches, 36 newsletters) 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Moore
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,015 statements
73%
73%
124th of 216
Policy criticism597 statements
43%
28%
11th of 216
Credit claiming176 statements
13%
23%
197th of 216
Personal attacks158 statements
11%
7%
35th of 216
Bipartisanship124 statements
9%
10%
104th of 216
Show the data
| Row | Moore | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 73% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 43% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 23% |
| Personal attacks | 11% | 7% |
| Bipartisanship | 9% | 10% |
1,393
statements classified
1,122 posts on X, 175 press releases, 60 Congressional Record speeches, 36 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,122 |
| press releases | 175 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 60 |
| newsletters | 36 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Moore; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Moore does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Moore used extreme labels in 2.9% of statements, above the peer average. 41 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.9%.
- “MAGA”18
- “extreme”10
- “woke”2
- “far right”1
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Donald Trump5
- Republicans3
- MAGA2
- Republican party2
- Trump2
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
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 109 | 16.5% | 40.4% | 64.2% | 9.2% | 16.5% | 8.3% |
| Feb ’25 | 112 | 18.8% | 46.4% | 71.4% | 8.0% | 8.9% | 3.6% |
| Mar ’25 | 99 | 12.1% | 43.4% | 64.6% | 4.0% | 15.2% | 3.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 82 | 6.1% | 50.0% | 69.5% | 4.9% | 11.0% | 1.2% |
| May ’25 | 85 | 4.7% | 52.9% | 74.1% | 3.5% | 5.9% | 2.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 79 | 6.3% | 45.6% | 75.9% | 10.1% | 11.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 73 | 9.6% | 53.4% | 74.0% | 6.9% | 9.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 50 | 20.0% | 44.0% | 76.0% | 4.0% | 6.0% | 8.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 56 | 10.7% | 42.9% | 66.1% | 12.5% | 7.1% | 1.8% |
| Oct ’25 | 86 | 11.6% | 48.8% | 73.3% | 9.3% | 3.5% | 8.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 48 | 22.9% | 50.0% | 66.7% | 12.5% | 20.8% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 53 | 9.4% | 41.5% | 77.4% | 15.1% | 5.7% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 53 | 5.7% | 35.9% | 86.8% | 15.1% | 13.2% | 1.9% |
| Feb ’26 | 45 | 8.9% | 44.4% | 71.1% | 13.3% | 17.8% | 4.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 53 | 9.4% | 47.2% | 77.4% | 18.9% | 18.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 55 | 3.6% | 41.8% | 69.1% | 14.5% | 16.4% | 3.6% |
| May ’26 | 46 | 13.0% | 23.9% | 56.5% | 15.2% | 23.9% | 2.2% |
| Jun ’26 | 52 | 9.6% | 59.6% | 75.0% | 5.8% | 19.2% | 3.9% |
| Jul ’26 | 45 | 11.1% | 22.2% | 82.2% | 6.7% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 42 | 11.9% | 21.4% | 85.7% | 4.8% | 14.3% | 4.8% |
| Sep ’26 | 34 | 8.8% | 23.5% | 82.3% | 5.9% | 8.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 36 | 16.7% | 19.4% | 91.7% | 2.8% | 19.4% | 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 Moore’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
A Fall Update from Your Congresswoman Dear friend, it’s your Congresswoman, Gwen Moore. I have been busy working on your behalf. I continue to conduct oversight in ICE detention centers, stand with the community and working people. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee with jurisdiction over…
Oct 13, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Families; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Immigration; International Affairs; Taxation
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Foreign Trade and International Finance; extreme label “MAGA, extreme” aimed at Tom Tiffany · Source
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.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Health · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Agriculture and Food · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource
Press releases
Congresswoman Gwen Moore Leads Effort to Crack Down on Corrupt, Taxpayer-Funded Settlements Congresswoman Gwen Moore introduced the Executive Settlement Review Act to provide stronger oversight and independent review and approval of any legal settlements that occur between the President, his political allies, or personal associates, and the federal government they oversee. This legislation comes as the Trump administ…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Law · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
All 1,393 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: 1,122 posts on X, 175 press releases, 60 Congressional Record speeches, 36 newsletters.
Policy
Health is what Moore talks about most: 35% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 183rd of 216).
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 Moore talks about. The bills Moore sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Moore talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%39%
Moore
Peers
Health358 statements
35%
26%
Economics and Public Finance341 statements
34%
20%
Taxation152 statements
15%
6%
Government Operations and Politics145 statements
14%
20%
Agriculture and Food128 statements
13%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Moore | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 35% | 26% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 34% | 20% |
| Taxation | 15% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 20% |
| Agriculture and Food | 13% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Moore’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. 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 39%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 35% | 26% | 21% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 34% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
| Taxation | 15% | 6% | 11% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 20% | 9% | 11% |
| Agriculture and Food | 13% | 9% | 4% | 4% |
0.64
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 183rd of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Moore legislates on exactly the areas Moore 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 Moore sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Moore sits at −1.24 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 82% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.26 to −1.22, which understates the uncertainty; from 874 donors and 7,219 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”.
−1.24
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.26 to −1.22. From 874 donors and 7,219 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Moore, 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 Moore’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 Moore sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Moore |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 18% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 9% |
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 Moore 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 Moore.
Money
Moore raised $1.3M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 9.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 29% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.
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.
$1.3M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 302 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)29 squares$385.3K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$41.6K
- PACs and other committees67 squares$883.6K
- Party committees$33
- The candidate’s own money and loans$668
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$7,964
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $385.3K | 29.2% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $41.6K | 3.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $883.6K | 67.0% |
| Party committees | $33 | 0.0% |
| The candidate’s own money and loans | $668 | 0.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $7,964 | 0.6% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.4M |
| 2026 cycle | $1.3M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 29% came from Wisconsin.
- Wisconsin$79.3K
- District of Columbia$32.8K
- Maryland$18.5K
- California$11.8K
- Illinois$10.3K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Moore
Median
2026
10%
13%
2024
10%
13%
2022
11%
13%
2020
16%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Moore | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 10% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 10% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 11% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 16% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | $79.3K |
| District of Columbia | $32.8K |
| Maryland | $18.5K |
| California | $11.8K |
| Illinois | $10.3K |
| Florida | $9,850 |
| Virginia | $9,005 |
| Minnesota | $8,800 |
| Massachusetts | $8,400 |
| Georgia | $8,000 |
| Connecticut | $7,600 |
| New York | $5,800 |
| Tennessee | $5,250 |
| Texas | $5,250 |
| Kansas | $4,500 |
| Ohio | $4,390 |
| Indiana | $4,300 |
| Michigan | $4,000 |
| New Hampshire | $3,300 |
| Alabama | $3,300 |
| Missouri | $2,500 |
| Arizona | $2,500 |
| North Carolina | $2,500 |
| Pennsylvania | $2,120 |
| Washington | $2,075 |
| Delaware | $2,000 |
| Utah | $1,750 |
| Idaho | $1,500 |
| South Dakota | $1,500 |
| New Jersey | $1,500 |
| Colorado | $1,000 |
| Kentucky | $1,000 |
| West Virginia | $1,000 |
| South Carolina | $1,000 |
| Hawaii | $1,000 |
| Nebraska | $750 |
| Louisiana | $500 |
| Rhode Island | $350 |
| Mississippi | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
302
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
29%
from Wisconsin
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 Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.5% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 41% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 27% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 7.8% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 4.6% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 6.0% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 9.3% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 3.7% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Moore’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Moore’s own score is −1.24.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- REAL ESTATE BROKER$50.0K 87 donors
- CEO$28.0K 16 donors
- ATTORNEY$24.6K 18 donors
- RETIRED$18.4K 9 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$18.1K 30 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
- AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
- CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BGR GROUP$2,250 3 donors
- MEHLMAN CONSULTING$1,455 4 donors
- TAXWELL$900 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Moore voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed 3.1% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Moore voted against the majority of House Democrats 17 times.
674 roll calls Moore could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Moore voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
17
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 99.1%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 79th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Moore, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Moore
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.8%
96.9%
155th of 217
Party unity
99.1%
96.4%
79th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Moore | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.8% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 99.1% | 96.4% |
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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | 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 | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Nay | 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 Moore most often
- Sara JacobsD651 shared votes99%
- Suzanne BonamiciD647 shared votes99%
- Bonnie Watson ColemanD646 shared votes99%
- Mark DeSaulnierD640 shared votes99%
- Emily RandallD636 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Moore least often
- Chip RoyR615 shared votes16%
- Ralph NormanR580 shared votes17%
- Eric BurlisonR625 shared votes17%
- Andy BiggsR589 shared votes18%
- Keith SelfR640 shared votes18%
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
Legislation
Moore sponsored 35 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 520 others. 5.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 67th of 207).
The bills Moore 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 35 | 35 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 520 | 520 | 14 | 3 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Moore sponsored, ochre blocks bills Moore cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
5.7%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 67th of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Moore, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Eleanor Norton81
- Danny Davis45
- Judy Chu43
- Rashida Tlaib37
- Terri Sewell35
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 Moore’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10853 | Yemen TPS Act | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 19, 2026 |
| H.R. 10764 | Executive Settlement Review Act | Sponsor | Oct 6, 2026 | In committee | Law | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 6, 2026 |
| H.R. 10740 | 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 |
| H.Res. 1610 | Expressing 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. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred 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.Res. 1586 | Recognizing and honoring the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. Sep 28, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 64 times in 90 days. Moore’s official site had 48 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Moore posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Moore’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 Moore posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 48
pages crawled
64changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
5changes 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.
Social accounts
- XRepGwenMoore
- FacebookGwenSMoore
- InstagramRepGwenMoore
- YouTubeRepGwenMoore
- Emailwi04ma@mail.house.gov
Images Moore posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A political graphic with a background of U.S. currency, two torn-paper headline panels with news logos, and cutout images of Donald Trump and another man gesturing. A campaign-style logo appears in the lower-left corner. The image contains text.View post 
A black-and-white political graphic shows several torn-paper news clippings about rising airline fares and fuel costs over a background of airplanes at an airport. A representative’s name and office information appear at the bottom.View post 
A political graphic shows three torn-paper news headlines stacked against a dark background, with a congressional representative’s name and logo at the bottom. The paper clippings feature news outlet branding and text.View post 
A political graphic shows three torn-paper news clippings arranged vertically over a close-up background of U.S. dollar bills. The clippings contain headlines about voters' concerns over government corruption and claims about Trump's financial priorities. A congressional representative's logo appears at the bottom. There is text throughout.View post 
A group of four baseball-themed plush dolls is arranged around a wooden office sign on a desk. A bowl of red-wrapped candy and office items are visible nearby. There is text on the sign and on some items.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.
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 Moore is most unusual among House Democrats, 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
- M001160
- Bioguide
- M001160
- FEC candidate ids
- H4WI04183
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