Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Utah’s 2nd district

Serving since Nov 21, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001228FEC H4UT02296

Portrait of Celeste Maloy, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.4%
of statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

0.4% of 534 statements use an extreme label (2 statements); the average for House Republicans is 3.0%. Ranks 201st of 221, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at liberal policies.

An AI model reads each of Maloy’s posts on X, press releases, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 21% of Maloy’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of House Republicans (average 15%). 1.1% of Maloy’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (median 9.4%).

The measures on which Maloy 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.

Extreme labels

0.4%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 201st of 221

Policy criticism

21%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 37th of 221

Small donations, 2026

1.1%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 189th of 220

Party unity

96.1%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 182nd of 221 · 24 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Out of committee

25%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 44th of 216

CSIP ideology

+0.78

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Maloy says

Maloy attacks opponents personally less than 77% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 534 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 172nd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Maloy’s 534 statements in the 119th Congress (368 posts on X, 95 newsletters, 55 press releases, 16 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Maloy
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion338 statements
63%
68%
164th of 221
Credit claiming206 statements
39%
37%
107th of 221
Policy criticism111 statements
21%
15%
37th of 221
Bipartisanship70 statements
13%
9%
52nd of 221
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
172nd of 221
Show the data
Maloy's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowMaloyPeers
Policy discussion63%68%
Credit claiming39%37%
Policy criticism21%15%
Bipartisanship13%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
534

statements classified

368 posts on X, 95 newsletters, 55 press releases, 16 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 368 (68.9%)posts on X 368newsletters: 95 (17.8%)press releases: 55 (10.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 16 (3.0%)
Show the data
Maloy's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X368
newsletters95
press releases55
Congressional Record speeches16
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Maloy used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 12% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at liberal policies; peers 3.0%.

  1. “extreme”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. liberal policies1
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: 532025-02: 462025-03: 352025-04: 362025-05: 372025-06: 332025-07: 372025-08: 292025-09: 372025-10: 282025-11: 182025-12: 212026-01: 292026-02: 92026-03: 132026-04: 92026-05: 122026-06: 152026-07: 142026-08: 102026-09: 92026-10: 4peak 53 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 3.8% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.8% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 45.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 20.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 45.3% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-02: 39.1% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-03: 20.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-04: 8.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-05: 18.9% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-06: 9.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-07: 13.5% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-08: 10.3% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-09: 10.8% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-10: 21.4% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-11: 11.1% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-12: 23.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-01: 6.9% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-03: 30.8% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.3% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-06: 20.0% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-07: 21.4% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-08: 20.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 90.0% · Aug ’26 · latest 90.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 73.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-02: 67.4% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-03: 51.4% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-04: 55.6% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-05: 62.2% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-07: 56.8% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-08: 51.7% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-09: 40.5% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-10: 46.4% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-11: 44.4% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-12: 61.9% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-01: 58.6% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-03: 84.6% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.0% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-06: 86.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-07: 85.7% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 23.1% · Mar ’26 · latest 10.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 13.2% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.9% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 20.0% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 19.4% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 21.6% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 15.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.4% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.5% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.8% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.1% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 14.3% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 10.3% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 23.1% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 8.3% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 6.7% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 14.3% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 10.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 69.2% · Mar ’26 · latest 40.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 49.1% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-02: 39.1% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-03: 40.0% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-04: 33.3% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-05: 54.0% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-06: 30.3% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-07: 40.5% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-08: 20.7% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-09: 32.4% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-10: 25.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-11: 22.2% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-12: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-01: 37.9% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-03: 69.2% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-05: 50.0% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-06: 40.0% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-07: 35.7% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-08: 40.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 3.6% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.9% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.6% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Maloy, 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 ’25533.8%45.3%73.6%13.2%49.1%0.0%
Feb ’25460.0%39.1%67.4%10.9%39.1%0.0%
Mar ’25350.0%20.0%51.4%20.0%40.0%2.9%
Apr ’25360.0%8.3%55.6%19.4%33.3%0.0%
May ’25370.0%18.9%62.2%21.6%54.0%0.0%
Jun ’25330.0%9.1%66.7%15.2%30.3%0.0%
Jul ’25370.0%13.5%56.8%5.4%40.5%0.0%
Aug ’25290.0%10.3%51.7%3.5%20.7%0.0%
Sep ’25370.0%10.8%40.5%10.8%32.4%0.0%
Oct ’25280.0%21.4%46.4%3.6%25.0%3.6%
Nov ’25180.0%11.1%44.4%11.1%22.2%0.0%
Dec ’25210.0%23.8%61.9%14.3%28.6%0.0%
Jan ’26290.0%6.9%58.6%10.3%37.9%0.0%
Feb ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Mar ’26130.0%30.8%84.6%23.1%69.2%0.0%
Apr ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
May ’26120.0%8.3%75.0%8.3%50.0%0.0%
Jun ’26150.0%20.0%86.7%6.7%40.0%0.0%
Jul ’26140.0%21.4%85.7%14.3%35.7%0.0%
Aug ’26100.0%20.0%90.0%10.0%40.0%0.0%
Sep ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Oct ’264— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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%. 4 months are hatched here.

In Maloy’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Rep. Celeste Maloy's Newsletter: What Happens When Utahns Call Washington? I often encourage you to call my office if there’s something we can help with. But once you share a concern with my team, what happens next? There’s more going on behind the scenes than you might realize. In this week’s vide…

Oct 9, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Health; Energy; Science, Technology, Communications; Emergency Management; Transportation and Public Works; Commerce

Personal attacks

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

Jan 16, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; Public Lands and Natural Resources; target: Joe Biden · Source

Extreme label

Government Shutdown Guidance Hi Friend, As you may know, a government shutdown began at 12:01 AM on Wednesday, October 1 after funding authorization for the federal government expired. Last month, I voted to avoid this situation and extend funding through November 21 with a continuing resolution. T…

Oct 1, 2025 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Health; Transportation and Public Works; extreme label “extreme” aimed at liberal policies

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Public Lands and Natural Resources · target: Joe BidenSource

  2. Newsletters

    Rep. Celeste Maloy Newsletter: Week One Down, Maloy Bills Become Law, and More Today, we finished our first full week as the 119th Congress, and House Republicans passed our first bill of the year. I give an update below: Today, we finished our first full week as the 119th Congress, and House Republicans passed our first bill of the year. I give an update below: As I mentioned in my video, House Republicans passed th…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Emergency Management

All 534 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: 368 posts on X, 95 newsletters, 55 press releases, 16 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Public Lands and Natural Resources is what Maloy talks about most: 38% of policy statements, 9.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 131st 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 Maloy talks about. The bills Maloy sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Maloy talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%42%
Maloy
Peers
Public Lands and Natural Resources128 statements
38%
4%
Government Operations and Politics93 statements
28%
19%
Economics and Public Finance86 statements
25%
19%
Energy70 statements
21%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security64 statements
19%
24%
Show the data
Policy areas Maloy talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowMaloyPeers
Public Lands and Natural Resources38%4%
Government Operations and Politics28%19%
Economics and Public Finance25%19%
Energy21%9%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Maloy’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 42%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onPublic Lands and NaturalResourcesPublic Lands and Natural Resources, talks about: 38% (House Republicans 4%)38%Public Lands and Natural Resources, legislates on: 28% (House Republicans 3%)28%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 28% (House Republicans 19%)28%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 12%)9%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 19%)25%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 9%)21%Energy, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 3%)9%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 24%)19%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 8%)3%
Show the data
Maloy's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Public Lands and Natural Resources38%4%28%3%
Government Operations and Politics28%19%9%12%
Economics and Public Finance25%19%0%2%
Energy21%9%9%3%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%3%8%
0.63

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 131st of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Maloy sits at +0.78 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 79% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.75 to +0.81, which understates the uncertainty; from 740 donors and 1,219 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”.

+0.78

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.75 to +0.81. From 740 donors and 1,219 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Maloy, 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 Maloy’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 Maloy sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Maloy +0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Maloy's CSIP score of +0.78 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Maloy
House Republicans221+1.020%
All House439+0.360%
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 Maloy 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 Maloy.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Maloy raised $1.7M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 1.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 43% of itemized individual money came from Utah.

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
$1.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 340 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): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $759.8K (46.0%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)PACs and other committees: $786.2K (47.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.5K (6.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.5K (6.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.5K (6.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.5K (6.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.5K (6.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.5K (6.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)46 squares$759.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$8,130
  • PACs and other committees48 squares$786.2K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)6 squares$98.5K
Show the data
Sources of Maloy's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$759.8K46.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$8,1300.5%
PACs and other committees$786.2K47.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$98.5K6.0%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M20242026 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Maloy's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$1.9M
2026 cycle$1.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 43% came from Utah.

  1. Utah$297.9K
  2. California$114.9K
  3. Virginia$58.5K
  4. District of Columbia$55.5K
  5. Washington$21.0K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.

0%60%
Maloy
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
5%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowMaloyMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle5%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $3,500NHWashington: $21.0KWAIdaho: $3,000IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $13.5KMINew York: $15.8KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $3,500MAOregon: $7,000ORNevada: $2,500NVWyoming: $12.5KWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $2,500INOhio: $250OHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: $3,500NJConnecticut: $11.5KCTCalifornia: $114.9KCAUtah: $297.9KUTColorado: $6,000CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $250MOKentucky: $500KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $58.5KVAMaryland: $12.5KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: $7,000NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $500TNNorth Carolina: $8,000NCSouth Carolina: $10.5KSCDistrict of Columbia: $55.5KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $5,500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $500ALGeorgia: $1,500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $6,750TXFlorida: $1,250FL
Show the data
Maloy's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Utah$297.9K
California$114.9K
Virginia$58.5K
District of Columbia$55.5K
Washington$21.0K
New York$15.8K
Michigan$13.5K
Wyoming$12.5K
Maryland$12.5K
Connecticut$11.5K
South Carolina$10.5K
North Carolina$8,000
Oregon$7,000
New Mexico$7,000
Texas$6,750
Colorado$6,000
Louisiana$5,500
New Hampshire$3,500
Massachusetts$3,500
New Jersey$3,500
Idaho$3,000
Nevada$2,500
Indiana$2,500
Georgia$1,500
Florida$1,250
Kentucky$500
Tennessee$500
Alabama$500
Ohio$250
Missouri$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
340

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

43%

from Utah

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 2.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.8%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 6.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 17%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 58%58%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.9%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Maloy's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 5.0% between −0.25 and 0.00, 6.0% between 0.00 and +0.25, 17% between +0.50 and +0.75, 58% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.752.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.8%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.256.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7517%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0058%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.9%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Maloy’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Maloy’s own score is +0.78.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. EXECUTIVE$85.0K 39 donors
  2. RETIRED$62.6K 39 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$55.0K 15 donors
  4. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS$54.9K 25 donors
  5. C.E.O.$51.3K 22 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ENGINEERING AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS, INC. PAC$15.0K
  2. NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
  3. VALUE IN ELECTING WOMEN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
  4. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. PAC$10.0K
  5. ABUNDANCE PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANTHROPIC$35.0K 10 donors
  2. ES3$31.5K 3 donors
  3. ANDERSON ADVANCED INGREDIENTS$10.3K 3 donors
  4. THE BERNHARDT GROUP$8,000 3 donors
  5. DORSEY & WHITNEY$5,700 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Maloy voted with the majority of House Republicans on 96.1% of party-line votes and missed 0.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Maloy voted against the majority of House Republicans 24 times.

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

24

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 96.1%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 182nd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Maloy
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.1%
96.3%
49th of 221
Party unity
96.1%
97.1%
182nd of 221
Show the data
Maloy's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowMaloyPeers
Attendance99.1%96.3%
Party unity96.1%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 Maloy most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR516 shared votes99%
  2. Hal RogersR657 shared votes99%
  3. Ken CalvertR667 shared votes99%
  4. Tom ColeR661 shared votes99%
  5. Jake EllzeyR659 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Maloy least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD387 shared votes25%
  2. Rashida TlaibD653 shared votes25%
  3. Delia RamirezD635 shared votes26%
  4. Gregorio CasarD569 shared votes27%
  5. Dan GoldmanD584 shared votes27%
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

Maloy sponsored 24 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 141 others. 25% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 44th of 216).

The bills Maloy 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

Sponsored24 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2424Sponsored, In committee: 2424Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored141 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 141141Cosponsored, In committee: 141141Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2323Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Maloy sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2424311
Cosponsored1411412333
How to read the blocks

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

25%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 44th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Burgess Owens33
  2. Mike Kennedy29
  3. Blake Moore29
  4. Harriet Hageman17
  5. Russ Fulcher17
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 Maloy’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. 1511Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' familiesCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 3, 2026
H.R. 10114To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15642 Sand Canyon Avenue in Irvine, California, as the "Mary Kageyama Nomura Post Office Building".CosponsorAug 17, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Aug 17, 2026
H.R. 10052Right to Worship ActCosponsorAug 6, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Aug 6, 2026
H.R. 9965AI Threat Output and Monitoring Incident Containment ActSponsorJul 27, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Jul 27, 2026
H.Res. 1446Honoring the lives and service of Emily Barker, Nick Hutcherson, Sydney Watson, Nicholas Dale, and all those who serve on the front lines of America's wildland firefighting efforts.CosponsorJul 22, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Jul 22, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 24 times in 90 days. Maloy’s official site had 23 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Maloy posted on Aug 14, 2026.

The lab crawls Maloy’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 Maloy 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 Maloy posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • People are seated and talking at long tables inside a large outdoor event tent. Some tables are empty, and condiments, drinks, and dishes are scattered across the tables. There is text on clothing, chairs, and containers.
    People are seated and talking at long tables inside a large outdoor event tent. Some tables are empty, and condiments, drinks, and dishes are scattered across the tables. There is text on clothing, chairs, and containers.View post
  • A woman and a man walk along a gravel path between rows of large beige temporary tents. There are tables and equipment beside the tents, with trees, distant hills, and a cloudy sky in the background. Some text is visible on the tents and equipment.
    A woman and a man walk along a gravel path between rows of large beige temporary tents. There are tables and equipment beside the tents, with trees, distant hills, and a cloudy sky in the background. Some text is visible on the tents and equipment.View post
  • The inside of a large temporary tent set up as a work or coordination area. Several people are seated or standing around tables with laptops, maps, and other equipment. String lights and cables hang from the tent ceiling, and a vehicle is visible outside through the open entrance. Some text is visible on signs and objects.
    The inside of a large temporary tent set up as a work or coordination area. Several people are seated or standing around tables with laptops, maps, and other equipment. String lights and cables hang from the tent ceiling, and a vehicle is visible outside through the open entrance. Some text is visible on signs and objects.View post
  • A group of men stand outdoors in front of a wooded hillside. Several look serious or attentive; one wears a wide-brimmed cowboy hat. No prominent text is visible.
    A group of men stand outdoors in front of a wooded hillside. Several look serious or attentive; one wears a wide-brimmed cowboy hat. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • A group of people stand on muddy, rocky ground in a mountain valley, while a camera operator films them in the foreground. Forested mountains and power lines are visible behind them. No visible text.
    A group of people stand on muddy, rocky ground in a mountain valley, while a camera operator films them in the foreground. Forested mountains and power lines are visible behind them. No visible text.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 Maloy 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
M001228
Bioguide
M001228
FEC candidate ids
H4UT02296

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