Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Alabama’s 3rd district

Serving since Jan 7, 2003119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide R000575FEC H2AL03032

Portrait of Mike Rogers, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.50
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom 5% of House Republicans

Agreement 0.50 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Republicans is 0.64. Ranks 212th of 221, where 1st is the closest match.

How closely the mix of policy areas in Rogers’s statements matches the mix in the bills Rogers sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among House Republicans.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 43% of Rogers’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 68%). 0.6% of Rogers’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (median 9.4%).

The measures on which Rogers 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.

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.50

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 212th of 221

Policy discussion

43%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 210th of 221

Small donations, 2026

0.6%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 205th of 220

Policy criticism

7.5%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 197th of 221

From Alabama, 2026

31%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 179th of 216 House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.95

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Rogers says

Rogers attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 0.7% of 412 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 132nd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Rogers’s 412 statements in the 119th Congress (220 posts on X, 160 Congressional Record speeches, 32 press releases) 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%
Rogers
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion176 statements
43%
68%
210th of 221
Credit claiming120 statements
29%
37%
172nd of 221
Policy criticism31 statements
8%
15%
197th of 221
Bipartisanship28 statements
7%
9%
126th of 221
Personal attacks3 statements
1%
2%
132nd of 221
Show the data
Rogers's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowRogersPeers
Policy discussion43%68%
Credit claiming29%37%
Policy criticism8%15%
Bipartisanship7%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
412

statements classified

220 posts on X, 160 Congressional Record speeches, 32 press releases.

posts on X: 220 (53.4%)posts on X 220Congressional Record speeches: 160 (38.8%)Congressional Record speeches 160press releases: 32 (7.8%)
Show the data
Rogers's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X220
Congressional Record speeches160
press releases32
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Rogers used extreme labels in 1.9% of statements, below the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at Biden administration; peers 3.0%.

  1. “far left”2
  2. “radical”2
  3. “woke”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Biden administration1
  2. conservative movement1
  3. DEI programs1
  4. far left1
  5. left1
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: 232025-02: 272025-03: 192025-04: 182025-05: 172025-06: 112025-07: 102025-08: 92025-09: 622025-10: 82025-11: 112025-12: 352026-01: 72026-02: 202026-03: 192026-04: 152026-05: 82026-06: 82026-07: 492026-08: 192026-09: 92026-10: 8peak 62 · Sep ’25Personal attackspeak 5.3% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.7% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.3% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 14.3% · Jul ’26 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 4.3% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-02: 7.4% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-03: 5.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-04: 5.6% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.9% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-06: 0.0% of 11Policy criticism, 2025-07: 10.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: 12.9% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-11: 0.0% of 11Policy criticism, 2025-12: 8.6% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-02: 5.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-03: 10.5% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-07: 14.3% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 72.7% · Nov ’25 · latest 42.1%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 43.5% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-02: 40.7% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-03: 57.9% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-04: 44.4% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-05: 52.9% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-06: 54.5% of 11Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: 30.6% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-11: 72.7% of 11Policy discussion, 2025-12: 31.4% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-03: 52.6% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-04: 46.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-07: 20.4% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-08: 42.1% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 20.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 11.1% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 0.0% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.6% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.9% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 11Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 20.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 17.7% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 9.1% of 11Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 8.6% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 6.7% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 4.1% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 70.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 10.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 34.8% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-02: 44.4% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-03: 36.8% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-04: 33.3% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-05: 35.3% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-06: 27.3% of 11Credit claiming, 2025-07: 70.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: 25.8% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-11: 54.5% of 11Credit claiming, 2025-12: 25.7% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-02: 65.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-03: 21.1% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.7% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-07: 8.2% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-08: 10.5% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 13.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 13.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-06: 9.1% of 11Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-11: 9.1% of 11Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Extreme 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 Rogers, 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 ’25230.0%4.3%43.5%0.0%34.8%13.0%
Feb ’25273.7%7.4%40.7%11.1%44.4%0.0%
Mar ’25195.3%5.3%57.9%0.0%36.8%0.0%
Apr ’25180.0%5.6%44.4%5.6%33.3%0.0%
May ’25170.0%5.9%52.9%5.9%35.3%0.0%
Jun ’25110.0%0.0%54.5%0.0%27.3%9.1%
Jul ’25100.0%10.0%70.0%20.0%70.0%0.0%
Aug ’259— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’25620.0%12.9%30.6%17.7%25.8%0.0%
Oct ’258— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Nov ’25110.0%0.0%72.7%9.1%54.5%9.1%
Dec ’25350.0%8.6%31.4%8.6%25.7%0.0%
Jan ’267— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Feb ’26200.0%5.0%60.0%5.0%65.0%0.0%
Mar ’26190.0%10.5%52.6%5.3%21.1%0.0%
Apr ’26150.0%0.0%46.7%6.7%26.7%0.0%
May ’268— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jun ’268— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jul ’26490.0%14.3%20.4%4.1%8.2%0.0%
Aug ’26190.0%0.0%42.1%0.0%10.5%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 ’268— (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%. 7 months are hatched here.

In Rogers’s words

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

Policy criticism

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I will start by thanking my good friend, Adam Smith, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, for his work on this bill. Again, this year, we have continued to work in a bipartisan fashion to lead the Committee on Armed S…

Jul 22, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 27, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; target: Democrats · Source

Extreme label

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

May 21, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “radical” aimed at left · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · target: DemocratsSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Al GreenSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · International Affairs · target: UNRWASource

All 412 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: 220 posts on X, 160 Congressional Record speeches, 32 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Rogers talks about most: 49% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.50 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 212th 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 Rogers talks about. The bills Rogers sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Rogers talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%54%
Rogers
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security87 statements
49%
24%
Education30 statements
17%
8%
Commerce20 statements
11%
9%
Economics and Public Finance19 statements
11%
19%
Government Operations and Politics18 statements
10%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Rogers talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowRogersPeers
Armed Forces and National Security49%24%
Education17%8%
Commerce11%9%
Economics and Public Finance11%19%
Government Operations and Politics10%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Rogers’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 54%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 49% (House Republicans 24%)49%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%EducationEducation, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 8%)17%Education, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 3%)3%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 11% (House Republicans 9%)11%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 11% (House Republicans 19%)11%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 10% (House Republicans 19%)10%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 12%)18%
Show the data
Rogers's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security49%24%7%8%
Education17%8%3%3%
Commerce11%9%1%2%
Economics and Public Finance11%19%0%2%
Government Operations and Politics10%19%18%12%
0.50

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 212th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Rogers sits at +0.95 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 60% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.93 to +0.96, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,408 donors and 7,357 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”.

+0.95

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.93 to +0.96. From 2,408 donors and 7,357 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Rogers +0.9House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Rogers, 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 Rogers’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 Rogers sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Rogers +0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Rogers's CSIP score of +0.95 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Rogers
House Republicans221+1.040%
All House439+0.370%
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 Rogers 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 Rogers.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Rogers raised $2.5M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 31% of itemized individual money came from Alabama.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$2.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 624 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): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (62.8%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)PACs and other committees: $875.2K (34.7%)Party committees: $14.0K (0.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $38.7K (1.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)63 squares$1.6M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$9,910
  • PACs and other committees35 squares$875.2K
  • Party committees1 squares$14.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$38.7K
Show the data
Sources of Rogers's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.6M62.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$9,9100.4%
PACs and other committees$875.2K34.7%
Party committees$14.0K0.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$38.7K1.5%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20202022 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M20222024 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M20242026 cycle: $2.5M$2.5M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Rogers's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.2M
2022 cycle$2.2M
2024 cycle$2.9M
2026 cycle$2.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 31% came from Alabama.

  1. Alabama$410.8K
  2. California$163.7K
  3. Florida$121.2K
  4. New York$113.2K
  5. Virginia$109.4K

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%
Rogers
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
1%
9%
2022
1%
9%
2020
1%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowRogersMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle1%9%
2022 cycle1%9%
2020 cycle1%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $1,500WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $1,000MNIllinois: $6,000ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $113.2KNYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: $1,000MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $16.5KNVWyoming: $5,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $5,000INOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $2,000PANew Jersey: $37.0KNJConnecticut: $34.5KCTCalifornia: $163.7KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $18.9KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $7,000MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $109.4KVAMaryland: $38.1KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $7,000AZNew Mexico: $1,000NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $7,000ARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $11.6KNCSouth Carolina: $8,500SCDistrict of Columbia: $19.8KDCOklahoma: $6,500OKLouisiana: $13.0KLAMississippi: $250MSAlabama: $410.8KALGeorgia: $93.8KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $74.0KTXFlorida: $121.2KFL
Show the data
Rogers's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Alabama$410.8K
California$163.7K
Florida$121.2K
New York$113.2K
Virginia$109.4K
Georgia$93.8K
Texas$74.0K
Maryland$38.1K
New Jersey$37.0K
Connecticut$34.5K
District of Columbia$19.8K
Colorado$18.9K
Nevada$16.5K
Louisiana$13.0K
North Carolina$11.6K
South Carolina$8,500
Missouri$7,000
Arizona$7,000
Arkansas$7,000
Oklahoma$6,500
Illinois$6,000
Wyoming$5,000
Indiana$5,000
Pennsylvania$2,000
Washington$1,500
Minnesota$1,000
Rhode Island$1,000
Massachusetts$1,000
New Mexico$1,000
Mississippi$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
OregonNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
OhioNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
HawaiiNo data
624

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

31%

from Alabama

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.5%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 5.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 6.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 9.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 11%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.3%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 49%49%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 7.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Rogers's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 6.1% between −0.25 and 0.00, 9.8% between 0.00 and +0.25, 11% between +0.25 and +0.50, 9.3% between +0.50 and +0.75, 49% between +0.75 and +1.00, 7.3% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.5%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.255.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.006.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.259.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5011%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0049%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.257.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Rogers’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Rogers’s own score is +0.95.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CEO$145.7K 49 donors
  2. RETIRED$145.1K 93 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$97.2K 34 donors
  4. OWNER$90.1K 26 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$70.3K 38 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIRBUS AMERICAS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. ALABAMA POWER CO EMPLOYEES FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION CMTE (APC EMPLOYEES FEDERAL PAC)$10.0K
  3. AM GENERAL LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AM GENERAL PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ASTRANIS$18.0K 6 donors
  2. ASTRAINS$17.5K 7 donors
  3. THE MEDICAL PLACE$17.5K 3 donors
  4. I/R$8,000 10 donors
  5. ALLEN CONTROL SYSTEMS$4,000 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Rogers voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.2% of party-line votes and missed 3.1% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rogers voted against the majority of House Republicans 13 times.

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

13

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 152nd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Rogers
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.8%
96.3%
157th of 221
Party unity
97.2%
97.1%
152nd of 221
Show the data
Rogers's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowRogersPeers
Attendance96.8%96.3%
Party unity97.2%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 Rogers most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR509 shared votes100%
  2. Hal RogersR641 shared votes99%
  3. Cliff BentzR652 shared votes99%
  4. John MoolenaarR651 shared votes99%
  5. Jake EllzeyR643 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rogers least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD376 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD638 shared votes25%
  3. Delia RamirezD622 shared votes25%
  4. Gregorio CasarD558 shared votes26%
  5. Dan GoldmanD575 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

Rogers sponsored 12 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 136 others. 25% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 44th of 216).

The bills Rogers 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

Sponsored12 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1212Sponsored, In committee: 1212Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored136 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 136136Cosponsored, In committee: 136136Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1919Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Rogers sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1212310
Cosponsored1361361911
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Rogers sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rogers 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 Rogers, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Barry Moore16
  2. Robert Aderholt12
  3. Terri Sewell12
  4. Dale Strong12
  5. Shomari Figures9
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 Rogers’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.Res. 1481Honoring the life and legacy of the Honorable Kay Granger, a Representative from the State of Texas.CosponsorAug 13, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on House Administration. Aug 13, 2026
H.R. 10076Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026CosponsorAug 10, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Rules, 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. Aug 10, 2026
H.R. 9936PERFORM ActCosponsorJul 23, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Jul 23, 2026
H.R. 9827Wildfire Reduction Market Expansion Act of 2026CosponsorJul 22, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Jul 22, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 41 times in 90 days. Rogers’s official site had 46 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Rogers posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Rogers’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 Rogers 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 Rogers posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of civilians and military personnel inspect industrial equipment in a warehouse. A man on the right gestures toward the machinery while the others watch. Some clothing and equipment have visible text.
    A group of civilians and military personnel inspect industrial equipment in a warehouse. A man on the right gestures toward the machinery while the others watch. Some clothing and equipment have visible text.View post
  • A group of workers and officials talk inside a large industrial factory. One worker reaches out to greet a man in a suit, who is holding safety glasses. There is some visible writing on equipment.
    A group of workers and officials talk inside a large industrial factory. One worker reaches out to greet a man in a suit, who is holding safety glasses. There is some visible writing on equipment.View post
  • A group of people, including civilians and military personnel, walk through a large industrial facility beneath a yellow overhead crane. Many are wearing headsets. There is visible text on some equipment and structures.
    A group of people, including civilians and military personnel, walk through a large industrial facility beneath a yellow overhead crane. Many are wearing headsets. There is visible text on some equipment and structures.View post
  • Several people are gathered inside an industrial workshop or factory. A woman in the foreground speaks with a group that includes a man in a suit holding a handheld device and a uniformed soldier wearing protective glasses and headphones. Machinery and equipment are visible in the background. There is text on some clothing and equipment.
    Several people are gathered inside an industrial workshop or factory. A woman in the foreground speaks with a group that includes a man in a suit holding a handheld device and a uniformed soldier wearing protective glasses and headphones. Machinery and equipment are visible in the background. There is text on some clothing and equipment.View post
  • Five adults in business attire pose for a group photo in an office. The room has flags, framed pictures and documents, cabinets, and a desk. Text appears on some framed items and badges.
    Five adults in business attire pose for a group photo in an office. The room has flags, framed pictures and documents, cabinets, and a desk. Text appears on some framed items and badges.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 Rogers 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
R000575
Bioguide
R000575
FEC candidate ids
H2AL03032

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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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