Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Pennsylvania’s 9th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001204FEC H8PA10147

Portrait of Daniel Meuser, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
45%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of House Republicans

45% of 20 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for House Republicans is 17%. Ranks 11th of 216, where 1st is the highest share.

The share of bills Meuser sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked among House Republicans. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 0.8% of Meuser’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (median 9.4%). Meuser missed 5.2% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 96.3%).

The measures on which Meuser 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.

Out of committee

45%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 11th of 216

Small donations, 2026

0.8%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 200th of 220

Attendance

94.8%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 177th of 221 · 674 roll calls

From Pennsylvania, 2026

63%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 63rd of 216 House Republicans

Extreme labels

1.1%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 160th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.01

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Meuser says

Meuser attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.4% of 1,659 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 101st of 221.

An AI model reads each of Meuser’s 1,659 statements in the 119th Congress (1,491 posts on X, 85 press releases, 47 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Meuser
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,162 statements
70%
68%
101st of 221
Credit claiming591 statements
36%
37%
129th of 221
Policy criticism271 statements
16%
15%
80th of 221
Bipartisanship108 statements
7%
9%
129th of 221
Personal attacks23 statements
1%
2%
101st of 221
Show the data
Meuser's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowMeuserPeers
Policy discussion70%68%
Credit claiming36%37%
Policy criticism16%15%
Bipartisanship7%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,659

statements classified

1,491 posts on X, 85 press releases, 47 Congressional Record speeches, 36 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,491 (89.9%)posts on X 1,491press releases: 85 (5.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 47 (2.8%)newsletters: 36 (2.2%)
Show the data
Meuser's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,491
press releases85
Congressional Record speeches47
newsletters36
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Meuser used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, 38% of the peer average. 19 statements, most often aimed at Democrat party; peers 3.0%.

  1. “woke”4
  2. “extreme”3
  3. “communist”2
  4. “far left”2
  5. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrat party1
  2. Democrat Socialists1
  3. judges1
  4. Left1
  5. mainstream media1
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: 1072025-02: 1072025-03: 1152025-04: 782025-05: 1032025-06: 792025-07: 882025-08: 412025-09: 952025-10: 912025-11: 682025-12: 852026-01: 712026-02: 942026-03: 782026-04: 472026-05: 662026-06: 542026-07: 632026-08: 342026-09: 702026-10: 25peak 115 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 5.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.9% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.9% of 115Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.6% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.9% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.3% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-07: 3.4% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-08: 2.4% of 41Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.5% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 85Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.8% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.1% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-04: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.6% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Policy criticismpeak 35.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 28.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 21.5% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-02: 35.5% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-03: 16.5% of 115Policy criticism, 2025-04: 17.9% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-05: 9.7% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-06: 17.7% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-07: 11.4% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.6% of 41Policy criticism, 2025-09: 13.7% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-10: 29.7% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-11: 14.7% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.5% of 85Policy criticism, 2026-01: 1.4% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-02: 19.1% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-03: 26.9% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-04: 2.1% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-05: 6.1% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-06: 14.8% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-07: 9.5% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-08: 5.9% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-09: 7.1% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-10: 28.0% of 25Policy discussionpeak 88.7% · Jan ’26 · latest 76.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 62.6% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-02: 85.0% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-03: 73.0% of 115Policy discussion, 2025-04: 71.8% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-05: 64.1% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-06: 74.7% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-07: 60.2% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-08: 63.4% of 41Policy discussion, 2025-09: 51.6% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-10: 65.9% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-11: 54.4% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-12: 81.2% of 85Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.7% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-02: 76.6% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-03: 75.6% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-04: 63.8% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-05: 69.7% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-06: 70.4% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-07: 61.9% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-08: 79.4% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-09: 74.3% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-10: 76.0% of 25Bipartisanshippeak 12.9% · Dec ’25 · latest 4.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 5.6% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.5% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.0% of 115Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 3.9% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.8% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 8.9% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.1% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 41Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.3% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.3% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 4.4% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 12.9% of 85Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.8% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 11.7% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 7.7% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.1% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 12.1% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 5.6% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 7.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.3% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.0% of 25Credit claimingpeak 51.4% · Feb ’25 · latest 36.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 44.9% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-02: 51.4% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-03: 35.6% of 115Credit claiming, 2025-04: 41.0% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-05: 45.6% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-06: 34.2% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-07: 34.1% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-08: 21.9% of 41Credit claiming, 2025-09: 20.0% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-10: 24.2% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.4% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-12: 49.4% of 85Credit claiming, 2026-01: 33.8% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-02: 48.9% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-03: 30.8% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-04: 17.0% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-05: 31.8% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.0% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-07: 23.8% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-08: 17.6% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-09: 37.1% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-10: 36.0% of 25Extreme labelspeak 5.9% · Aug ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.9% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.8% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.5% of 115Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.5% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.1% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.2% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 85Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.4% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.1% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-08: 5.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.4% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Meuser, 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 ’251071.9%21.5%62.6%5.6%44.9%0.9%
Feb ’251070.0%35.5%85.0%7.5%51.4%2.8%
Mar ’251150.9%16.5%73.0%7.0%35.6%3.5%
Apr ’25782.6%17.9%71.8%3.9%41.0%0.0%
May ’251031.9%9.7%64.1%5.8%45.6%0.0%
Jun ’25791.3%17.7%74.7%8.9%34.2%2.5%
Jul ’25883.4%11.4%60.2%9.1%34.1%0.0%
Aug ’25412.4%14.6%63.4%0.0%21.9%0.0%
Sep ’25950.0%13.7%51.6%5.3%20.0%2.1%
Oct ’25915.5%29.7%65.9%3.3%24.2%2.2%
Nov ’25680.0%14.7%54.4%4.4%29.4%0.0%
Dec ’25850.0%16.5%81.2%12.9%49.4%0.0%
Jan ’26712.8%1.4%88.7%2.8%33.8%1.4%
Feb ’26941.1%19.1%76.6%11.7%48.9%1.1%
Mar ’26780.0%26.9%75.6%7.7%30.8%0.0%
Apr ’26474.3%2.1%63.8%2.1%17.0%0.0%
May ’26660.0%6.1%69.7%12.1%31.8%0.0%
Jun ’26540.0%14.8%70.4%5.6%37.0%0.0%
Jul ’26631.6%9.5%61.9%7.9%23.8%0.0%
Aug ’26340.0%5.9%79.4%0.0%17.6%5.9%
Sep ’26700.0%7.1%74.3%4.3%37.1%1.4%
Oct ’26250.0%28.0%76.0%4.0%36.0%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Meuser’s words

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

Bipartisanship

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

Oct 13, 2026 · Posts on X · bipartisanship · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jul 29, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Anthony Fauci · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 10, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Immigration; extreme label “radical” aimed at open borders, transgender sports · 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 · target: Anthony FauciSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Emergency Management · target: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormickSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Eric SwalwellSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: LeftSource

  5. 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 · target: Larry KrasnerSource

All 1,659 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: 1,491 posts on X, 85 press releases, 47 Congressional Record speeches, 36 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Meuser talks about most: 26% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 87th 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 Meuser talks about. The bills Meuser sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Meuser talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Meuser
Peers
Economics and Public Finance296 statements
26%
19%
Government Operations and Politics234 statements
20%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security184 statements
16%
24%
Finance and Financial Sector184 statements
16%
3%
Commerce180 statements
16%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Meuser talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowMeuserPeers
Economics and Public Finance26%19%
Government Operations and Politics20%19%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%
Finance and Financial Sector16%3%
Commerce16%9%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 19%)26%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 19%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 12%)10%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 24%)16%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 8%)4%Finance and Financial SectorFinance and Financial Sector, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 3%)16%Finance and Financial Sector, legislates on: 19% (House Republicans 5%)19%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 9%)16%Commerce, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 2%)8%
Show the data
Meuser's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance26%19%1%2%
Government Operations and Politics20%19%10%12%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%4%8%
Finance and Financial Sector16%3%19%5%
Commerce16%9%8%2%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 87th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Meuser sits at +1.01 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 51% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.99 to +1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,280 donors and 3,715 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”.

+1.01

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.99 to +1.02. From 1,280 donors and 3,715 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Meuser, 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 Meuser’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 Meuser sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Meuser +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Meuser's CSIP score of +1.01 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Meuser
House Republicans221+1.051%
All House439+0.375%
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 Meuser 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 Meuser.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Meuser raised $2.1M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.8% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 63% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.

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
$2.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 456 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): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $955.5K (44.9%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)PACs and other committees: $938.5K (44.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $228.1K (10.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)45 squares$955.5K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$7,531
  • PACs and other committees44 squares$938.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)11 squares$228.1K
Show the data
Sources of Meuser's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$955.5K44.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$7,5310.4%
PACs and other committees$938.5K44.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$228.1K10.7%
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: $1.1M$1.1M20202022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20242026 cycle: $2.1M$2.1M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Meuser's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.1M
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$1.8M
2026 cycle$2.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 63% came from Pennsylvania.

  1. Pennsylvania$685.1K
  2. Florida$92.6K
  3. New York$53.7K
  4. Virginia$53.3K
  5. Connecticut$32.3K

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%
Meuser
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
1%
9%
2022
2%
9%
2020
2%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowMeuserMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle1%9%
2022 cycle2%9%
2020 cycle2%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $3,500MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $500MNIllinois: $7,041ILWisconsin: $16.0KWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $53.7KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $520MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $1,020NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $4,541OHPennsylvania: $685.1KPANew Jersey: $21.0KNJConnecticut: $32.3KCTCalifornia: $15.3KCAUtah: $2,000UTColorado: $1,041CONebraska: $500NEMissouri: $520MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $53.3KVAMaryland: $8,541MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $14.0KAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $520TNNorth Carolina: $11.5KNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $24.5KDCOklahoma: $3,500OKLouisiana: $500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $4,020GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $22.3KTXFlorida: $92.6KFL
Show the data
Meuser's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Pennsylvania$685.1K
Florida$92.6K
New York$53.7K
Virginia$53.3K
Connecticut$32.3K
District of Columbia$24.5K
Texas$22.3K
New Jersey$21.0K
Wisconsin$16.0K
California$15.3K
Arizona$14.0K
North Carolina$11.5K
Maryland$8,541
Illinois$7,041
Ohio$4,541
Georgia$4,020
Montana$3,500
Oklahoma$3,500
Utah$2,000
Colorado$1,041
Nevada$1,020
Massachusetts$520
Missouri$520
Tennessee$520
Minnesota$500
Nebraska$500
Louisiana$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
456

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

63%

from Pennsylvania

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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.8%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 5.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 46%46%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 30%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Meuser's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 5.2% between 0.00 and +0.25, 5.5% between +0.25 and +0.50, 9.8% between +0.50 and +0.75, 46% between +0.75 and +1.00, 30% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.8%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.505.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0046%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2530%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Meuser’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Meuser’s own score is +1.01.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. PRESIDENT$127.2K 42 donors
  2. RETIRED$125.6K 57 donors
  3. OWNER$110.3K 33 donors
  4. CEO$93.6K 35 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$36.2K 14 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR HOMECARE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAHOMECARE PAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ABC PAC)$10.0K
  5. BUILDING AMERICA'S REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATION PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NASDAQ$23.1K 7 donors
  2. TALEN ENERGY$8,000 4 donors
  3. ELEVATE CREDIT$3,250 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Meuser voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.5% of party-line votes and missed 5.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Meuser voted against the majority of House Republicans 14 times.

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

14

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 135th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Meuser
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.8%
96.3%
177th of 221
Party unity
97.5%
97.1%
135th of 221
Show the data
Meuser's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowMeuserPeers
Attendance94.8%96.3%
Party unity97.5%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Meuser most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR495 shared votes99%
  2. Neal DunnR528 shared votes98%
  3. Mike KellyR630 shared votes98%
  4. Frank LucasR629 shared votes98%
  5. Robert WittmanR621 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Meuser least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD372 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD627 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD610 shared votes25%
  4. Brittany PettersenD539 shared votes26%
  5. Lizzie FletcherD624 shared votes26%
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

Meuser sponsored 20 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 340 others. 45% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 11th of 216).

The bills Meuser 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

Sponsored20 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2020Sponsored, In committee: 2020Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored340 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 340340Cosponsored, In committee: 340340Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 6060Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Meuser sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2020611
Cosponsored3403406064
How to read the blocks

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

45%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 11th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler31
  2. Tim Moore30
  3. Andy Barr26
  4. Brian Fitzpatrick25
  5. Bill Huizenga23
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 Meuser’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.Res. 1633Expressing support for the designation of the week of October 19 through October 23, 2026, as "Careers in Energy Week".CosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10705Stop SIM Box Scams ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10610Stop Spam Calls ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10327Cost Estimates Improvement ActCosponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeEconomics and Public FinanceReferred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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 10, 2026
H.R. 10328Badge-to-Business ActCosponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeCommerceReferred to the House Committee on Small Business. Sep 10, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 59 times in 90 days. Meuser’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Meuser posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Meuser’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 Meuser 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 Meuser posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue commemorative graphic featuring the U.S. Capitol dome and building, a government agency seal, and financial data imagery in the background. Large lettering announces an observance and its date.
    A blue commemorative graphic featuring the U.S. Capitol dome and building, a government agency seal, and financial data imagery in the background. Large lettering announces an observance and its date.View post
  • A man in a dark suit sits on a small chair and reads a colorful book with several young children in a classroom. The room has child-sized furniture, shelves of toys and supplies, and a colorful rug. There is text on some classroom materials.
    A man in a dark suit sits on a small chair and reads a colorful book with several young children in a classroom. The room has child-sized furniture, shelves of toys and supplies, and a colorful rug. There is text on some classroom materials.View post
  • A man seated in a classroom or childcare room reads a book with a young boy standing beside him. Other children are partially visible in the foreground. There are drawings and other text on the walls.
    A man seated in a classroom or childcare room reads a book with a young boy standing beside him. Other children are partially visible in the foreground. There are drawings and other text on the walls.View post
  • A group of adults and young children pose together in a classroom. A seated man holds a child’s drawing, and classroom decorations and notices are visible in the background.
    A group of adults and young children pose together in a classroom. A seated man holds a child’s drawing, and classroom decorations and notices are visible in the background.View post
  • A promotional graphic featuring a portrait of a man in a dark suit against a light blue background, with a large text banner across the lower part of the image.
    A promotional graphic featuring a portrait of a man in a dark suit against a light blue background, with a large text banner across the lower part of the image.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 Meuser 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
M001204
Bioguide
M001204
FEC candidate ids
H8PA10147

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