Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Minnesota’s 5th district

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

Bioguide O000173FEC H8MN05239

Portrait of Ilhan Omar, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
69%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of House Democrats

69% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 2nd of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $8.2M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Democrats. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 9.0% of Omar’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Minnesota, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats. Omar raised $8.2M in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of House Democrats (median $2.0M).

The measures on which Omar sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Small donations, 2026

69%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 2nd of 214

From Minnesota, 2026

9.0%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 210th of 214 House Democrats

Raised, 2026

$8.2M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 14th of 214

CSIP ideology

−1.28

More liberal than 87% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Bipartisanship

5.5%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 176th of 216

Out of committee

0%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 171st of 207

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Omar says

Omar stresses bipartisanship less than 81% of House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 5.5% of 1,374 statements, against 9.8% for the average House Democrat; 176th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Omar’s 1,374 statements in the 119th Congress (1,111 posts on X, 137 press releases, 83 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Omar
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,024 statements
75%
73%
101st of 216
Policy criticism477 statements
35%
28%
50th of 216
Credit claiming365 statements
27%
23%
65th of 216
Bipartisanship76 statements
6%
10%
176th of 216
Personal attacks68 statements
5%
7%
121st of 216
Show the data
Omar's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowOmarPeers
Policy discussion75%73%
Policy criticism35%28%
Credit claiming27%23%
Bipartisanship6%10%
Personal attacks5%7%
1,374

statements classified

1,111 posts on X, 137 press releases, 83 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,111 (80.9%)posts on X 1,111press releases: 137 (10.0%)Congressional Record speeches: 83 (6.0%)newsletters: 43 (3.1%)
Show the data
Omar's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,111
press releases137
Congressional Record speeches83
newsletters43
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Omar used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, close to the peer average. 25 statements, most often aimed at ICE; peers 1.9%.

  1. “fascist”5
  2. “extreme”3
  3. “radical”2
  4. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. ICE2
  2. America1
  3. America First1
  4. Donald Trump1
  5. fascism1
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: 922025-02: 1162025-03: 1162025-04: 832025-05: 1222025-06: 722025-07: 1012025-08: 412025-09: 792025-10: 762025-11: 392025-12: 652026-01: 622026-02: 542026-03: 362026-04: 482026-05: 322026-06: 432026-07: 432026-08: 112026-09: 282026-10: 15peak 122 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 20.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 20.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.3% of 92Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.8% of 116Personal attacks, 2025-03: 7.8% of 116Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.4% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.6% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-06: 5.6% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-07: 5.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2025-08: 7.3% of 41Personal attacks, 2025-09: 3.8% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.3% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-11: 10.3% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-12: 6.2% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-01: 3.2% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.8% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.8% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-06: 11.6% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-07: 4.7% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-09: 7.1% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-10: 20.0% of 15Policy criticismpeak 53.7% · Feb ’26 · latest 6.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 28.3% of 92Policy criticism, 2025-02: 41.4% of 116Policy criticism, 2025-03: 37.1% of 116Policy criticism, 2025-04: 31.3% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-05: 42.6% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-06: 34.7% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-07: 43.6% of 101Policy criticism, 2025-08: 36.6% of 41Policy criticism, 2025-09: 40.5% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-10: 50.0% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-11: 33.3% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-12: 23.1% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-01: 8.1% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-02: 53.7% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-03: 47.2% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-04: 25.0% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-05: 25.0% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-06: 37.2% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-07: 16.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-08: 18.2% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-10: 6.7% of 15Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 100.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.1% of 92Policy discussion, 2025-02: 69.8% of 116Policy discussion, 2025-03: 67.2% of 116Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.9% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-05: 73.0% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.7% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-07: 79.2% of 101Policy discussion, 2025-08: 63.4% of 41Policy discussion, 2025-09: 69.6% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-10: 77.6% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-11: 64.1% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-12: 76.9% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.9% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-02: 72.2% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-03: 75.0% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-04: 91.7% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-05: 84.4% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-06: 86.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-07: 83.7% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-08: 81.8% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-09: 85.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-10: 100.0% of 15Bipartisanshippeak 14.0% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 8.7% of 92Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 3.5% of 116Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 5.2% of 116Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.4% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 1.6% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 11.1% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 2.0% of 101Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.3% of 41Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.1% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 2.6% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.7% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.7% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.8% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 1.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 11.1% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.1% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 6.3% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 9.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 7.1% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 15Credit claimingpeak 43.8% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 43.5% of 92Credit claiming, 2025-02: 34.5% of 116Credit claiming, 2025-03: 19.0% of 116Credit claiming, 2025-04: 32.5% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-05: 27.1% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-06: 22.2% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-07: 27.7% of 101Credit claiming, 2025-08: 31.7% of 41Credit claiming, 2025-09: 41.8% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-10: 10.5% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-11: 23.1% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-12: 26.2% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-01: 14.5% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-02: 9.3% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-03: 22.2% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-04: 20.8% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-05: 43.8% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-06: 23.3% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-07: 30.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-08: 9.1% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-09: 32.1% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-10: 0.0% of 15Extreme labelspeak 7.0% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 92Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.6% of 116Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.9% of 116Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.6% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.5% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.2% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2025-08: 2.4% of 41Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-10: 4.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.5% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.8% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-05: 3.1% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-06: 7.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 15Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Omar, 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 ’25923.3%28.3%76.1%8.7%43.5%0.0%
Feb ’251167.8%41.4%69.8%3.5%34.5%2.6%
Mar ’251167.8%37.1%67.2%5.2%19.0%0.9%
Apr ’25832.4%31.3%63.9%2.4%32.5%3.6%
May ’251221.6%42.6%73.0%1.6%27.1%2.5%
Jun ’25725.6%34.7%66.7%11.1%22.2%4.2%
Jul ’251015.0%43.6%79.2%2.0%27.7%1.0%
Aug ’25417.3%36.6%63.4%7.3%31.7%2.4%
Sep ’25793.8%40.5%69.6%10.1%41.8%0.0%
Oct ’25765.3%50.0%77.6%2.6%10.5%4.0%
Nov ’253910.3%33.3%64.1%7.7%23.1%0.0%
Dec ’25656.2%23.1%76.9%7.7%26.2%1.5%
Jan ’26623.2%8.1%83.9%4.8%14.5%0.0%
Feb ’26541.8%53.7%72.2%1.8%9.3%0.0%
Mar ’26362.8%47.2%75.0%11.1%22.2%2.8%
Apr ’26480.0%25.0%91.7%2.1%20.8%2.1%
May ’26320.0%25.0%84.4%6.3%43.8%3.1%
Jun ’264311.6%37.2%86.1%14.0%23.3%7.0%
Jul ’26434.7%16.3%83.7%9.3%30.2%0.0%
Aug ’26110.0%18.2%81.8%0.0%9.1%0.0%
Sep ’26287.1%10.7%85.7%7.1%32.1%0.0%
Oct ’261520.0%6.7%100.0%0.0%0.0%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 Omar’s words

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

Personal attacks

Office of Rep. Ilhan Omar Statement on DHS Raid The Office of Congresswoman Omar released the following statement: “This raid by Trump’s DHS is an outrageous abuse of power and an unprecedented escalation in the weaponization of federal law enforcement to target political enemies. For a decade, Dona…

Oct 12, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source

Bipartisanship

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible life of Minnesota State representative Karen Clark. For nearly four decades, Karen dedicated her life to serving the people of Minneapolis--as a nurse, as an educator, and as a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. She was also a trai…

Sep 15, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Environmental Protection; Education; Housing and Community Development · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 12, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Republicans · 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. Press releases

    Office of Rep. Ilhan Omar Statement on DHS Raid The Office of Congresswoman Omar released the following statement: “This raid by Trump’s DHS is an outrageous abuse of power and an unprecedented escalation in the weaponization of federal law enforcement to target political enemies. For a decade, Donald Trump has relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Ilhan Omar with inflammatory rhetoric, repeatedly putting a target on h…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. 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 · Immigration · target: Jonathan RossSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: officerSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource

  5. Press releases

    Workforce Protections Ranking Member Omar Remarks at Hearing on President Trump’s Deregulatory Agenda at the Department of Labor WASHINGTON – Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (MN-05) delivered the following opening statement at today’s Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing entitled, “Less Red Tape, More Opportunity: Unleashing American Workers and Job Creators.” “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Agriculture and Food · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 1,374 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: 1,111 posts on X, 137 press releases, 83 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Omar talks about most: 23% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 45th of 216).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Omar talks about. The bills Omar sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Omar talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Omar
Peers
Health239 statements
23%
26%
Immigration194 statements
19%
11%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues168 statements
16%
13%
Economics and Public Finance167 statements
16%
20%
Government Operations and Politics163 statements
16%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Omar talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowOmarPeers
Health23%26%
Immigration19%11%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues16%13%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%
Government Operations and Politics16%20%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 26%)23%Health, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 16%)11%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 11%)19%Immigration, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 4%)6%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 13%)16%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 5%)6%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 20%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 20%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 11%)10%
Show the data
Omar's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health23%26%11%16%
Immigration19%11%6%4%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues16%13%6%5%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics16%20%10%11%
0.71

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 45th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Omar sits at −1.28 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 87% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.30 to −1.26, which understates the uncertainty; from 13,330 donors and 3,765 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”.

−1.28

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.30 to −1.26. From 13,330 donors and 3,765 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Omar −1.3House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Omar, 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 Omar’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 Omar sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Omar −1.3All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Omar's CSIP score of −1.28 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Omar
House Democrats217−1.012%
All House439+0.36%
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 Omar 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 Omar.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Omar raised $8.2M in the 2026 cycle, 4.2 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 69% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 9.0% of itemized individual money came from Minnesota.

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
$8.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 4,124 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (30.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.4M (65.9%)PACs and other committees: $104.8K (1.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $210.3K (2.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $210.3K (2.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $210.3K (2.6%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)30 squares$2.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)66 squares$5.4M
  • PACs and other committees1 squares$104.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)3 squares$210.3K
Show the data
Sources of Omar's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.5M30.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$5.4M65.9%
PACs and other committees$104.8K1.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$210.3K2.6%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $5.8M$5.8M20202022 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20222024 cycle: $8.3M$8.3M20242026 cycle: $8.2M$8.2M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Omar's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.8M
2022 cycle$3.1M
2024 cycle$8.3M
2026 cycle$8.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 9.0% came from Minnesota.

  1. California$436.3K
  2. Minnesota$167.2K
  3. New York$163.9K
  4. Texas$125.7K
  5. Illinois$121.7K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Omar
Median
2026
69%
13%
2024
49%
13%
2022
43%
13%
2020
61%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowOmarMedian
2026 cycle69%13%
2024 cycle49%13%
2022 cycle43%13%
2020 cycle61%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $3,910AKMaine: $8,171MEVermont: $4,674VTNew Hampshire: $4,378NHWashington: $52.7KWAIdaho: $3,420IDMontana: $1,640MTNorth Dakota: $310NDMinnesota: $167.2KMNIllinois: $121.7KILWisconsin: $38.8KWIMichigan: $31.5KMINew York: $163.9KNYRhode Island: $4,069RIMassachusetts: $70.6KMAOregon: $37.1KORNevada: $3,780NVWyoming: $650WYSouth Dakota: $1,850SDIowa: $9,794IAIndiana: $6,686INOhio: $18.0KOHPennsylvania: $32.1KPANew Jersey: $48.1KNJConnecticut: $9,942CTCalifornia: $436.3KCAUtah: $2,577UTColorado: $57.4KCONebraska: $5,313NEMissouri: $5,539MOKentucky: $12.9KKYWest Virginia: $6,499WVVirginia: $38.9KVAMaryland: $58.6KMDDelaware: $869DEArizona: $12.8KAZNew Mexico: $15.5KNMKansas: $10.1KKSArkansas: $1,675ARTennessee: $10.4KTNNorth Carolina: $25.0KNCSouth Carolina: $5,065SCDistrict of Columbia: $51.9KDCOklahoma: $3,030OKLouisiana: $5,003LAMississippi: $1,840MSAlabama: $3,690ALGeorgia: $17.9KGAHawaii: $8,239HITexas: $125.7KTXFlorida: $93.1KFL
Show the data
Omar's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$436.3K
Minnesota$167.2K
New York$163.9K
Texas$125.7K
Illinois$121.7K
Florida$93.1K
Massachusetts$70.6K
Maryland$58.6K
Colorado$57.4K
Washington$52.7K
District of Columbia$51.9K
New Jersey$48.1K
Virginia$38.9K
Wisconsin$38.8K
Oregon$37.1K
Pennsylvania$32.1K
Michigan$31.5K
North Carolina$25.0K
Ohio$18.0K
Georgia$17.9K
New Mexico$15.5K
Kentucky$12.9K
Arizona$12.8K
Tennessee$10.4K
Kansas$10.1K
Connecticut$9,942
Iowa$9,794
Hawaii$8,239
Maine$8,171
Indiana$6,686
West Virginia$6,499
Missouri$5,539
Nebraska$5,313
South Carolina$5,065
Louisiana$5,003
Vermont$4,674
New Hampshire$4,378
Rhode Island$4,069
Alaska$3,910
Nevada$3,780
Alabama$3,690
Idaho$3,420
Oklahoma$3,030
Utah$2,577
South Dakota$1,850
Mississippi$1,840
Arkansas$1,675
Montana$1,640
Delaware$869
Wyoming$650
North Dakota$310
4,124

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

9.0%

from Minnesota

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 0.0%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.1%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 34%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 52%52%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 11%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Omar's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.00 to +1.00: 34% between −1.50 and −1.25, 52% between −1.25 and −1.00, 11% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.00 to −1.750.0%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.1%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2534%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0052%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7511%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Omar’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Omar’s own score is −1.28.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$850.8K 2,290 donors
  2. PHYSICIAN$106.6K 176 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$66.7K 95 donors
  4. CEO$63.7K 33 donors
  5. RETIRED$53.1K 144 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
  2. NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATION$10.0K
  3. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ACTIVE BALLOT CLUB$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. HCA$10.5K 4 donors
  2. NVIDIA$8,350 4 donors
  3. META$3,654 3 donors
  4. AMAZON$3,555 6 donors
  5. GOOGLE$3,480 8 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Omar voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed 2.2% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Omar voted against the majority of House Democrats 32 times.

674 roll calls Omar could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Omar voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

32

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.9%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 88th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Omar
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.7%
96.9%
126th of 217
Party unity
98.9%
96.4%
88th of 217
Show the data
Omar's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowOmarPeers
Attendance97.7%96.9%
Party unity98.9%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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
NayAgainst 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
NayWith 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 Omar most often

  1. Delia RamirezD626 shared votes99%
  2. Summer LeeD659 shared votes98%
  3. Ayanna PressleyD643 shared votes98%
  4. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezD641 shared votes98%
  5. Gregorio CasarD564 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Omar least often

  1. Chip RoyR621 shared votes15%
  2. Ralph NormanR587 shared votes15%
  3. Eric BurlisonR630 shared votes16%
  4. Keith SelfR645 shared votes16%
  5. Josh BrecheenR627 shared votes17%
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

Omar sponsored 19 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 469 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Omar 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

Sponsored19 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1919Sponsored, In committee: 1919Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored469 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 469469Cosponsored, In committee: 469469Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Omar sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1919000
Cosponsored469469922
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Rashida Tlaib108
  2. Eleanor Norton92
  3. Delia Ramirez65
  4. Summer Lee62
  5. Pramila Jayapal61
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 Omar’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10853Yemen TPS ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10832IRAN ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10803To abolish the Department of Homeland Security and establish a Department of Community Safety, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, the Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Rules, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Armed Services, Intelligence (Permanent Select), Education and Workforce, Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 13, 2026
H.R. 10807Get the Flock Out of Our Communities ActCosponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 13, 2026
H.R. 10651End Tax Breaks for Dark Money ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 56 times in 90 days. Omar’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Omar posted on Sep 3, 2026.

The lab crawls Omar’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 Omar posts with a vision model.

Websites

  • Official site

    omar.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    33

    pages crawled

    56

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Omar posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A woman wearing a black head wrap and a plaid jacket sits at a desk and looks at a laptop. A framed poster and office items are visible behind and beside her.
    A woman wearing a black head wrap and a plaid jacket sits at a desk and looks at a laptop. A framed poster and office items are visible behind and beside her.View post
  • A photograph of a formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead. It is dated and addressed to a Homeland Security Investigations official, and contains several paragraphs discussing an undercover agent, a community event, and concerns about vehicle license plates. The letter continues beyond the bottom edge of the image.
    A photograph of a formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead. It is dated and addressed to a Homeland Security Investigations official, and contains several paragraphs discussing an undercover agent, a community event, and concerns about vehicle license plates. The letter continues beyond the bottom edge of the image.View post
  • A cropped page from a formal letter, showing a numbered list of questions and a closing with a handwritten signature. The letter is signed by a member of Congress.
    A cropped page from a formal letter, showing a numbered list of questions and a closing with a handwritten signature. The letter is signed by a member of Congress.View post
  • A smiling woman wearing a gray headscarf and dark green blazer stands at a wooden podium with microphones in a conference room. Papers rest on the podium, and another person is partly visible at the right edge. There is text on the podium seal.
    A smiling woman wearing a gray headscarf and dark green blazer stands at a wooden podium with microphones in a conference room. Papers rest on the podium, and another person is partly visible at the right edge. There is text on the podium seal.View post
  • A woman wearing a headscarf speaks at a podium to a seated audience in a conference room. The podium bears an emblem, and a few people stand near the side. There is text on the emblem.
    A woman wearing a headscarf speaks at a podium to a seated audience in a conference room. The podium bears an emblem, and a few people stand near the side. There is text on the emblem.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 Omar is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
O000173
Bioguide
O000173
FEC candidate ids
H8MN05239

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