Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New York’s 18th district

Serving since Sep 13, 2022119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide R000579FEC H8NY19223

Portrait of Patrick Ryan, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.6×
the House Democrat rate of credit claiming

36% of 2,054 statements claim credit (737 statements); the average for House Democrats is 23%. Ranks 15th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Ryan’s press releases, posts on X, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 63% of Ryan’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 73%). 14% of Ryan’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 28%).

The measures on which Ryan 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.

Credit claiming

36%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 15th of 216

Policy discussion

63%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 197th of 216

Policy criticism

14%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 192nd of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.64

More conservative than 87% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Party unity

92.9%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 184th of 217 · 39 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Raised, 2026

$5.4M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 33rd of 214

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Ryan says

Ryan criticizes policies less than 88% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 14% of 2,054 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 192nd of 216.

An AI model reads each of Ryan’s 2,054 statements in the 119th Congress (1,744 posts on X, 221 press releases, 75 newsletters, 14 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Ryan
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,291 statements
63%
73%
197th of 216
Credit claiming737 statements
36%
23%
15th of 216
Policy criticism295 statements
14%
28%
192nd of 216
Bipartisanship183 statements
9%
10%
103rd of 216
Personal attacks74 statements
4%
7%
150th of 216
Show the data
Ryan's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowRyanPeers
Policy discussion63%73%
Credit claiming36%23%
Policy criticism14%28%
Bipartisanship9%10%
Personal attacks4%7%
2,054

statements classified

1,744 posts on X, 221 press releases, 75 newsletters, 14 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,744 (84.9%)posts on X 1,744press releases: 221 (10.8%)newsletters: 75 (3.7%)Congressional Record speeches: 14 (0.7%)
Show the data
Ryan's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,744
press releases221
newsletters75
Congressional Record speeches14
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Ryan used extreme labels in 1.4% of statements, below the peer average. 29 statements, most often aimed at politicians; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”14
  2. “far right”10
  3. “MAGA”7
  4. “radical”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. politicians6
  2. judges5
  3. far-right4
  4. far-right extremists3
  5. MAGA cronies3
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: 472025-02: 582025-03: 982025-04: 1352025-05: 1042025-06: 1032025-07: 1312025-08: 1202025-09: 1392025-10: 1222025-11: 1052025-12: 1152026-01: 1072026-02: 1012026-03: 1102026-04: 562026-05: 762026-06: 842026-07: 872026-08: 602026-09: 492026-10: 47peak 139 · Sep ’25Personal attackspeak 10.6% · Oct ’26 · latest 10.6%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.1% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-03: 7.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-04: 5.2% of 135Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 104Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.9% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-07: 3.8% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-08: 2.5% of 120Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.4% of 139Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.6% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.9% of 105Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.7% of 115Personal attacks, 2026-01: 4.7% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-02: 5.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.4% of 110Personal attacks, 2026-04: 8.9% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.3% of 76Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-07: 5.8% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-09: 8.2% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-10: 10.6% of 47Policy criticismpeak 36.2% · Feb ’25 · latest 23.4%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 23.4% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-02: 36.2% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-03: 17.3% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-04: 14.8% of 135Policy criticism, 2025-05: 19.2% of 104Policy criticism, 2025-06: 10.7% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-07: 16.8% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-08: 11.7% of 120Policy criticism, 2025-09: 13.0% of 139Policy criticism, 2025-10: 11.5% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-11: 11.4% of 105Policy criticism, 2025-12: 15.7% of 115Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.7% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.9% of 101Policy criticism, 2026-03: 12.7% of 110Policy criticism, 2026-04: 10.7% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-05: 13.2% of 76Policy criticism, 2026-06: 19.1% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-07: 17.2% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-08: 5.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-09: 8.2% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-10: 23.4% of 47Policy discussionpeak 93.6% · Oct ’26 · latest 93.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 66.0% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-02: 67.2% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-03: 45.9% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-04: 51.8% of 135Policy discussion, 2025-05: 50.0% of 104Policy discussion, 2025-06: 53.4% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-07: 46.6% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-08: 59.2% of 120Policy discussion, 2025-09: 61.2% of 139Policy discussion, 2025-10: 61.5% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-11: 68.6% of 105Policy discussion, 2025-12: 73.0% of 115Policy discussion, 2026-01: 82.2% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-02: 54.5% of 101Policy discussion, 2026-03: 48.2% of 110Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-05: 69.7% of 76Policy discussion, 2026-06: 70.2% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-07: 77.0% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-08: 81.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-09: 77.5% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.6% of 47Bipartisanshippeak 23.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 10.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 23.4% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 17.2% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 15.3% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.8% of 135Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.6% of 104Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 7.8% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.2% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.8% of 120Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.6% of 139Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 2.5% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.6% of 105Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 8.7% of 115Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.6% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.0% of 101Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 0.9% of 110Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.4% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 11.8% of 76Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 19.1% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.3% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 8.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.1% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 10.6% of 47Credit claimingpeak 59.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 29.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 59.6% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-02: 39.7% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-03: 26.5% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-04: 33.3% of 135Credit claiming, 2025-05: 33.7% of 104Credit claiming, 2025-06: 34.9% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-07: 32.1% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-08: 43.3% of 120Credit claiming, 2025-09: 46.0% of 139Credit claiming, 2025-10: 33.6% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-11: 54.3% of 105Credit claiming, 2025-12: 33.0% of 115Credit claiming, 2026-01: 29.0% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-02: 35.6% of 101Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.2% of 110Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.8% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-05: 43.4% of 76Credit claiming, 2026-06: 50.0% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-07: 26.4% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-08: 26.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-09: 18.4% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-10: 29.8% of 47Extreme labelspeak 5.9% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 135Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 104Extreme labels, 2025-06: 5.8% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.5% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.8% of 120Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.2% of 139Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.8% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 105Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.9% of 115Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 110Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-05: 4.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2026-06: 5.9% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-08: 3.3% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 47Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Ryan, 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 ’25472.1%23.4%66.0%23.4%59.6%2.1%
Feb ’25580.0%36.2%67.2%17.2%39.7%1.7%
Mar ’25987.1%17.3%45.9%15.3%26.5%0.0%
Apr ’251355.2%14.8%51.8%11.8%33.3%0.0%
May ’251040.0%19.2%50.0%8.6%33.7%0.0%
Jun ’251033.9%10.7%53.4%7.8%34.9%5.8%
Jul ’251313.8%16.8%46.6%9.2%32.1%1.5%
Aug ’251202.5%11.7%59.2%5.8%43.3%0.8%
Sep ’251391.4%13.0%61.2%8.6%46.0%2.2%
Oct ’251221.6%11.5%61.5%2.5%33.6%0.8%
Nov ’251050.9%11.4%68.6%7.6%54.3%0.0%
Dec ’251151.7%15.7%73.0%8.7%33.0%0.9%
Jan ’261074.7%4.7%82.2%5.6%29.0%0.0%
Feb ’261015.0%12.9%54.5%5.0%35.6%3.0%
Mar ’261106.4%12.7%48.2%0.9%28.2%0.0%
Apr ’26568.9%10.7%80.4%5.4%26.8%0.0%
May ’26761.3%13.2%69.7%11.8%43.4%4.0%
Jun ’26840.0%19.1%70.2%19.1%50.0%5.9%
Jul ’26875.8%17.2%77.0%10.3%26.4%0.0%
Aug ’26605.0%5.0%81.7%8.3%26.7%3.3%
Sep ’26498.2%8.2%77.5%6.1%18.4%0.0%
Oct ’264710.6%23.4%93.6%10.6%29.8%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 Ryan’s words

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

Personal attacks

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

Oct 7, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Health; Taxation; target: Republicans · Source

Policy criticism

FOLLOWING BIPARTISAN PUSH FROM CONGRESSMAN PAT RYAN AND COLLEAGUES DEMANDING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SPEED UP LIHEAP DISTRIBUTION, HHS RELEASES $356 MILLION FOR NEW YORK As temperatures begin to drop and fuel prices remain high due to the Iran War, Congressman Ryan demanded that the Department of Healt…

Oct 17, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Economics and Public Finance; Environmental Protection · Source

Extreme label

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

Aug 13, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA cronies, Trump · 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 discussion · Health · Taxation · target: RepublicansSource

  2. Press releases

    “DON’T MESS WITH NEW YORK”: CONGRESSMAN PAT RYAN AND NEW YORK DELEGATION INTRODUCE BICAMERAL LEGISLATION TO REVERSE TRUMP’S DEVASTATING CUTS TO HEALTHCARE AND RESTORE COVERAGE FOR 450,000 NEW YORKERS Congressman Pat Ryan and the entire New York Democratic Delegation introduced legislation to reverse the Republican cuts to health care and restore coverage for 450,000 New Yorkers. In NY-18, 15,656 E

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Taxation · Agriculture and Food · target: RepublicansSource

  3. 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

  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 · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and PoliticsSource

  5. Press releases

    CONGRESSMAN PAT RYAN INTRODUCES “NO TROOPS IN OUR STREETS ACT” TO PREVENT ILLEGAL DOMESTIC TROOP DEPLOYMENTS AND VOTER INTIMIDATION AHEAD OF MIDTERM ELECTION Ryan’s bill prevents President Trump from weaponizing the military to interfere with elections; the introduction follows new reports that advisors close to the President are encouraging him to declare martial law ahead of the midterm elections Trump has repeated…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: TrumpSource

All 2,054 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: 1,744 posts on X, 221 press releases, 75 newsletters, 14 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Ryan talks about most: 36% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 159th 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 Ryan talks about. The bills Ryan sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Ryan talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%40%
Ryan
Peers
Health466 statements
36%
26%
Armed Forces and National Security362 statements
28%
16%
Economics and Public Finance255 statements
20%
20%
Government Operations and Politics217 statements
17%
20%
Education186 statements
14%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Ryan talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowRyanPeers
Health36%26%
Armed Forces and National Security28%16%
Economics and Public Finance20%20%
Government Operations and Politics17%20%
Education14%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Ryan’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 40%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 36% (House Democrats 26%)36%Health, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 16%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 28% (House Democrats 16%)28%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 17% (House Democrats 7%)17%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 20%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 20%)17%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%EducationEducation, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 10%)14%Education, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 5%)3%
Show the data
Ryan's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health36%26%13%16%
Armed Forces and National Security28%16%17%7%
Economics and Public Finance20%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics17%20%11%11%
Education14%10%3%5%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 159th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Ryan sits at −0.64 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 87% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.66 to −0.63, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,657 donors and 2,026 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”.

−0.64

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.66 to −0.63. From 5,657 donors and 2,026 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Ryan −0.6House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Ryan, 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 Ryan’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 Ryan sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Ryan −0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Ryan's CSIP score of −0.64 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Ryan
House Democrats217−1.087%
All House439+0.343%
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 Ryan 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 Ryan.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Ryan raised $5.4M in the 2026 cycle, 2.7 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 8.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 64% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$5.4M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,617 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): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.6M (67.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $347.9K (6.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $347.9K (6.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $347.9K (6.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $347.9K (6.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $347.9K (6.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $347.9K (6.5%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)PACs and other committees: $639.1K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $733.3K (13.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)68 squares$3.6M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)6 squares$347.9K
  • PACs and other committees12 squares$639.1K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)14 squares$733.3K
Show the data
Sources of Ryan's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.6M67.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$347.9K6.5%
PACs and other committees$639.1K11.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$733.3K13.7%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $11.4K$11.4K20202022 cycle: $4.7M$4.7M20222024 cycle: $8.1M$8.1M20242026 cycle: $5.4M$5.4M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Ryan's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$11.4K
2022 cycle$4.7M
2024 cycle$8.1M
2026 cycle$5.4M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 64% came from New York.

  1. New York$3.0M
  2. California$461.5K
  3. Massachusetts$321.7K
  4. Connecticut$127.6K
  5. Illinois$121.5K

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%
Ryan
Median
2026
9%
13%
2024
13%
13%
2022
14%
13%
2020
—
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowRyanMedian
2026 cycle9%13%
2024 cycle13%13%
2022 cycle14%13%
2020 cycle—13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $250AKMaine: $10.8KMEVermont: $1,000VTNew Hampshire: $32.5KNHWashington: $55.0KWAIdaho: $1,000IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $7,000MNIllinois: $121.5KILWisconsin: $1,000WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $3.0MNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $321.7KMAOregon: $1,000ORNevada: $14.0KNVWyoming: $2,525WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $500IAIndiana: $250INOhio: $500OHPennsylvania: $24.5KPANew Jersey: $38.1KNJConnecticut: $127.6KCTCalifornia: $461.5KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $33.8KCONebraska: $2,000NEMissouri: $500MOKentucky: $21.0KKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $81.9KVAMaryland: $51.5KMDDelaware: $3,000DEArizona: $3,300AZNew Mexico: $1,000NMKansas: $3,600KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $250TNNorth Carolina: $14.0KNCSouth Carolina: $250SCDistrict of Columbia: $90.9KDCOklahoma: $300OKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $250ALGeorgia: $10.0KGAHawaii: $9,500HITexas: $22.3KTXFlorida: $80.7KFL
Show the data
Ryan's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$3.0M
California$461.5K
Massachusetts$321.7K
Connecticut$127.6K
Illinois$121.5K
District of Columbia$90.9K
Virginia$81.9K
Florida$80.7K
Washington$55.0K
Maryland$51.5K
New Jersey$38.1K
Colorado$33.8K
New Hampshire$32.5K
Pennsylvania$24.5K
Texas$22.3K
Kentucky$21.0K
North Carolina$14.0K
Nevada$14.0K
Maine$10.8K
Georgia$10.0K
Hawaii$9,500
Minnesota$7,000
Kansas$3,600
Arizona$3,300
Delaware$3,000
Wyoming$2,525
Nebraska$2,000
Vermont$1,000
Idaho$1,000
Wisconsin$1,000
Oregon$1,000
New Mexico$1,000
Iowa$500
Ohio$500
Missouri$500
Oklahoma$300
Alaska$250
Indiana$250
Tennessee$250
South Carolina$250
Alabama$250
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
South DakotaNo data
UtahNo data
West VirginiaNo data
ArkansasNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
1,617

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

64%

from New York

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.1%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 5.7%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 49%49%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 36%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.6%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Ryan's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 5.7% between −1.25 and −1.00, 49% between −1.00 and −0.75, 36% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.1%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.005.7%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7549%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5036%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Ryan’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Ryan’s own score is −0.64.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$1.2M 566 donors
  2. RETIRED$272.0K 99 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$261.2K 81 donors
  4. CEO$175.2K 34 donors
  5. INVESTOR$163.8K 26 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANTHROPIC$44.5K 4 donors
  2. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES$38.5K 9 donors
  3. POWER ROGERS LLP$31.0K 4 donors
  4. KLM EQUITIES$26.0K 3 donors
  5. ANDURIL INDUSTRIES$25.1K 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Ryan voted with the majority of House Democrats on 92.9% of party-line votes and missed 0.6% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Ryan voted against the majority of House Democrats 39 times.

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

39

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 92.9%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 184th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Ryan
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
96.9%
49th of 217
Party unity
92.9%
96.4%
184th of 217
Show the data
Ryan's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowRyanPeers
Attendance99.4%96.9%
Party unity92.9%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 Ryan most often

  1. Analilia MejiaD186 shared votes97%
  2. Christian MenefeeD253 shared votes97%
  3. George WhitesidesD653 shared votes97%
  4. Eric SorensenD665 shared votes96%
  5. Greg StantonD655 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Ryan least often

  1. Chip RoyR631 shared votes20%
  2. Eric BurlisonR639 shared votes22%
  3. Josh BrecheenR640 shared votes22%
  4. Keith SelfR656 shared votes22%
  5. Ralph NormanR595 shared votes22%
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

Ryan sponsored 23 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 239 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Ryan 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

Sponsored23 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2323Sponsored, In committee: 2323Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored239 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 239239Cosponsored, In committee: 239239Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2020Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Ryan sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2323000
Cosponsored2392392000
How to read the blocks

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

  1. Michael Lawler27
  2. Eugene Vindman18
  3. Chris Deluzio17
  4. Josh Riley16
  5. Nicolas LaLota15
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 Ryan’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. 10875To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 22, 2026
H.R. 10779To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1905 Route 112 in Medford, New York, as the "Gunnery Sergeant Ruben Santos Post Office Building".CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10692Restoring Essential Plan Coverage ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 1, 2026
H.R. 10697No Troops in Our Streets Act of 2026SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Rules, Appropriations, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10600Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 83 times in 90 days. Ryan’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Ryan posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Ryan’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 Ryan 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 Ryan posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A red, white, and navy-blue informational poster announcing that applications for Congressman Pat Ryan’s U.S. service academy nominations are open. It includes a short description of the academies, an application deadline, a link, and the congressman’s branding. The poster uses stars and horizontal lines as decorations.
    A red, white, and navy-blue informational poster announcing that applications for Congressman Pat Ryan’s U.S. service academy nominations are open. It includes a short description of the academies, an application deadline, a link, and the congressman’s branding. The poster uses stars and horizontal lines as decorations.View post
  • A blue promotional graphic announcing a congressional app challenge and that applications are open. It highlights a deadline with a red oval and includes a QR code and a congressional representative’s branding. Text is present throughout.
    A blue promotional graphic announcing a congressional app challenge and that applications are open. It highlights a deadline with a red oval and includes a QR code and a congressional representative’s branding. Text is present throughout.View post
  • A blue-and-white flyer advertising a virtual election security briefing with two congressmen and the Ulster County Board of Elections. It includes event details, registration instructions, a QR code, and a web address.
    A blue-and-white flyer advertising a virtual election security briefing with two congressmen and the Ulster County Board of Elections. It includes event details, registration instructions, a QR code, and a web address.View post
  • A purple-and-white school welcome sign mounted on a light-colored brick wall, with a wolf emblem and large lettering. Other small objects are partially visible at the bottom left.
    A purple-and-white school welcome sign mounted on a light-colored brick wall, with a wolf emblem and large lettering. Other small objects are partially visible at the bottom left.View post
  • A group of people gather in a school or community hallway around an organization’s display table, which holds gift baskets, flowers, balloons, and a plush wolf. There is signage and other text on the table and wall.
    A group of people gather in a school or community hallway around an organization’s display table, which holds gift baskets, flowers, balloons, and a plush wolf. There is signage and other text on the table and wall.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 Ryan 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
R000579
Bioguide
R000579
FEC candidate ids
H8NY19223

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