Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Texas’s 21st district

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

Bioguide R000614FEC H8TX21307

Portrait of Chip Roy, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.0×
the House Republican rate of policy criticism

30% of 3,396 statements criticize a policy (1,015 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 6th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Roy’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Roy sits at +1.57 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 98% of House Republicans. 46% of Roy’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top tenth of House Republicans (median 9.4%).

The measures on which Roy 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.

Policy criticism

30%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 6th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.57

More conservative than 98% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Small donations, 2026

46%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 17th of 220

Credit claiming

21%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 200th of 221

Extreme labels

7.1%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 20th of 221

Raised, 2026

$783.2K

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 196th of 220

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Roy says

Roy stresses bipartisanship less than 76% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 4.4% of 3,396 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 169th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Roy’s 3,396 statements in the 119th Congress (2,868 posts on X, 290 Congressional Record speeches, 168 press releases, 70 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Roy
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,352 statements
69%
68%
105th of 221
Policy criticism1,015 statements
30%
15%
6th of 221
Credit claiming708 statements
21%
37%
200th of 221
Bipartisanship148 statements
4%
9%
169th of 221
Personal attacks76 statements
2%
2%
68th of 221
Show the data
Roy's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowRoyPeers
Policy discussion69%68%
Policy criticism30%15%
Credit claiming21%37%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks2%2%
3,396

statements classified

2,868 posts on X, 290 Congressional Record speeches, 168 press releases, 70 newsletters.

posts on X: 2,868 (84.5%)posts on X 2,868Congressional Record speeches: 290 (8.5%)press releases: 168 (4.9%)newsletters: 70 (2.1%)
Show the data
Roy's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,868
Congressional Record speeches290
press releases168
newsletters70
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Roy used extreme labels in 7.1% of statements, 2.3 times the peer average. 240 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”102
  2. “woke”23
  3. “communist”11
  4. “extreme”9
  5. “far left”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats23
  2. radical left10
  3. Left9
  4. judges8
  5. Leftists8
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: 2182025-02: 1552025-03: 1452025-04: 1902025-05: 2402025-06: 1712025-07: 1402025-08: 632025-09: 2002025-10: 2182025-11: 1842025-12: 1772026-01: 1682026-02: 2162026-03: 1952026-04: 872026-05: 1252026-06: 1522026-07: 1472026-08: 622026-09: 922026-10: 51peak 240 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 5.8% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.3% of 218Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.3% of 155Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.5% of 145Personal attacks, 2025-04: 5.8% of 190Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.8% of 240Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.2% of 171Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.7% of 140Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.5% of 200Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.8% of 218Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.3% of 184Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.1% of 177Personal attacks, 2026-01: 3.6% of 168Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.8% of 216Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.6% of 195Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.1% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 125Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.0% of 152Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.4% of 147Personal attacks, 2026-08: 1.6% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 92Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 51Policy criticismpeak 45.2% · Feb ’25 · latest 15.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 33.9% of 218Policy criticism, 2025-02: 45.2% of 155Policy criticism, 2025-03: 29.7% of 145Policy criticism, 2025-04: 34.7% of 190Policy criticism, 2025-05: 42.9% of 240Policy criticism, 2025-06: 44.4% of 171Policy criticism, 2025-07: 26.4% of 140Policy criticism, 2025-08: 38.1% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-09: 26.0% of 200Policy criticism, 2025-10: 38.1% of 218Policy criticism, 2025-11: 29.3% of 184Policy criticism, 2025-12: 26.6% of 177Policy criticism, 2026-01: 11.9% of 168Policy criticism, 2026-02: 13.4% of 216Policy criticism, 2026-03: 30.8% of 195Policy criticism, 2026-04: 29.9% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-05: 24.8% of 125Policy criticism, 2026-06: 43.4% of 152Policy criticism, 2026-07: 13.6% of 147Policy criticism, 2026-08: 21.0% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-09: 14.1% of 92Policy criticism, 2026-10: 15.7% of 51Policy discussionpeak 90.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 90.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 62.8% of 218Policy discussion, 2025-02: 72.9% of 155Policy discussion, 2025-03: 74.5% of 145Policy discussion, 2025-04: 74.7% of 190Policy discussion, 2025-05: 69.6% of 240Policy discussion, 2025-06: 70.8% of 171Policy discussion, 2025-07: 61.4% of 140Policy discussion, 2025-08: 74.6% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-09: 54.0% of 200Policy discussion, 2025-10: 57.3% of 218Policy discussion, 2025-11: 59.2% of 184Policy discussion, 2025-12: 74.6% of 177Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.1% of 168Policy discussion, 2026-02: 50.0% of 216Policy discussion, 2026-03: 59.5% of 195Policy discussion, 2026-04: 73.6% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-05: 80.0% of 125Policy discussion, 2026-06: 78.3% of 152Policy discussion, 2026-07: 83.7% of 147Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.3% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-09: 83.7% of 92Policy discussion, 2026-10: 90.2% of 51Bipartisanshippeak 15.9% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 6.9% of 218Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 1.3% of 155Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 3.5% of 145Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.3% of 190Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.6% of 240Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.4% of 171Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.0% of 140Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 15.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.0% of 200Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 0.0% of 218Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.5% of 184Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.7% of 177Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.8% of 168Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.1% of 216Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 4.6% of 195Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.8% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 1.6% of 125Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 1.3% of 152Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 1.4% of 147Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.6% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 92Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 51Credit claimingpeak 34.5% · Apr ’26 · latest 25.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 28.4% of 218Credit claiming, 2025-02: 25.2% of 155Credit claiming, 2025-03: 20.0% of 145Credit claiming, 2025-04: 15.3% of 190Credit claiming, 2025-05: 13.8% of 240Credit claiming, 2025-06: 12.3% of 171Credit claiming, 2025-07: 17.1% of 140Credit claiming, 2025-08: 20.6% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-09: 16.5% of 200Credit claiming, 2025-10: 10.5% of 218Credit claiming, 2025-11: 20.6% of 184Credit claiming, 2025-12: 14.7% of 177Credit claiming, 2026-01: 24.4% of 168Credit claiming, 2026-02: 31.9% of 216Credit claiming, 2026-03: 19.0% of 195Credit claiming, 2026-04: 34.5% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-05: 26.4% of 125Credit claiming, 2026-06: 27.6% of 152Credit claiming, 2026-07: 32.6% of 147Credit claiming, 2026-08: 11.3% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-09: 19.6% of 92Credit claiming, 2026-10: 25.5% of 51Extreme labelspeak 25.0% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.6% of 218Extreme labels, 2025-02: 7.1% of 155Extreme labels, 2025-03: 6.9% of 145Extreme labels, 2025-04: 5.3% of 190Extreme labels, 2025-05: 5.0% of 240Extreme labels, 2025-06: 7.6% of 171Extreme labels, 2025-07: 6.4% of 140Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.6% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-09: 25.0% of 200Extreme labels, 2025-10: 12.8% of 218Extreme labels, 2025-11: 9.8% of 184Extreme labels, 2025-12: 5.1% of 177Extreme labels, 2026-01: 3.0% of 168Extreme labels, 2026-02: 6.0% of 216Extreme labels, 2026-03: 6.7% of 195Extreme labels, 2026-04: 8.1% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-05: 4.8% of 125Extreme labels, 2026-06: 6.6% of 152Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.4% of 147Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.6% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.2% of 92Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 51Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Roy, 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 ’252182.3%33.9%62.8%6.9%28.4%4.6%
Feb ’251551.3%45.2%72.9%1.3%25.2%7.1%
Mar ’251453.5%29.7%74.5%3.5%20.0%6.9%
Apr ’251905.8%34.7%74.7%6.3%15.3%5.3%
May ’252403.8%42.9%69.6%4.6%13.8%5.0%
Jun ’251711.2%44.4%70.8%6.4%12.3%7.6%
Jul ’251400.7%26.4%61.4%5.0%17.1%6.4%
Aug ’25630.0%38.1%74.6%15.9%20.6%1.6%
Sep ’252001.5%26.0%54.0%9.0%16.5%25.0%
Oct ’252181.8%38.1%57.3%0.0%10.5%12.8%
Nov ’251843.3%29.3%59.2%6.5%20.6%9.8%
Dec ’251771.1%26.6%74.6%5.7%14.7%5.1%
Jan ’261683.6%11.9%88.1%1.8%24.4%3.0%
Feb ’262161.8%13.4%50.0%5.1%31.9%6.0%
Mar ’261954.6%30.8%59.5%4.6%19.0%6.7%
Apr ’26871.1%29.9%73.6%5.8%34.5%8.1%
May ’261250.0%24.8%80.0%1.6%26.4%4.8%
Jun ’261522.0%43.4%78.3%1.3%27.6%6.6%
Jul ’261471.4%13.6%83.7%1.4%32.6%1.4%
Aug ’26621.6%21.0%90.3%1.6%11.3%1.6%
Sep ’26920.0%14.1%83.7%0.0%19.6%2.2%
Oct ’26510.0%15.7%90.2%0.0%25.5%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 Roy’s words

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

Policy criticism

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

Oct 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Health · Source

Bipartisanship

Rep. Roy & Rep. Cohen Introduce Bipartisan ARTICLE ONE Act Requiring Congressional Approval on National Emergencies After 30 Days Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Chip Roy (TX-21) and Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09) introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act, legislation that would require Congress to appr…

Aug 20, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 19, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “radical” aimed at policies · 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 · target: Anthony FauciSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Anthony FauciSource

  3. Press releases

    Rep. Roy Outlines What Republicans Must Do Before End of 119th Congress Washington, D.C. – Congressman Chip Roy (TX-21) sent a letter to his House and Senate Republican colleagues outlining what Republicans must do before the end of the 119th Congress. The Daily Signal wrote an exclusive story on the letter, which you can read here. Dear House and Senate GOP Colleagues: We were elected to deliver what we promised the…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Government Operations and Politics · Energy · Finance and Financial Sector · Education · Taxation · Law · Immigration · Science, Technology, Communications · International Affairs · Commerce · Housing and Community Development · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Agriculture and Food · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · extreme label “radical” aimed at gender ideology · target: Federal judgesSource

  4. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisan nature of remarks tonight in remembrance of the importance of this week and Independence Day and our great Nation's history and this particular one, celebrating the 250th. I am going to first, though, focus a little bit on my home State of Texas. It was 1 year ago this week that we were in the throes of negotiating what was called at the time the big, beautiful bill, an import…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Taxation · Health · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security · Law · Immigration · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesSource

  5. Posts on X

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

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

All 3,396 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: 2,868 posts on X, 290 Congressional Record speeches, 168 press releases, 70 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Roy talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 3.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 33rd 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 Roy talks about. The bills Roy sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Roy talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%44%
Roy
Peers
Immigration944 statements
40%
13%
Government Operations and Politics616 statements
26%
19%
Crime and Law Enforcement425 statements
18%
12%
Economics and Public Finance384 statements
16%
19%
Health352 statements
15%
15%
Show the data
Policy areas Roy talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowRoyPeers
Immigration40%13%
Government Operations and Politics26%19%
Crime and Law Enforcement18%12%
Economics and Public Finance16%19%
Health15%15%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Roy’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 44%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 40% (House Republicans 13%)40%Immigration, legislates on: 22% (House Republicans 5%)22%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 19%)26%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 15% (House Republicans 12%)15%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 12%)18%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 9%)8%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 19%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 2%)2%HealthHealth, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 15%)15%Health, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 11%)6%
Show the data
Roy's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Immigration40%13%22%5%
Government Operations and Politics26%19%15%12%
Crime and Law Enforcement18%12%8%9%
Economics and Public Finance16%19%2%2%
Health15%15%6%11%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 33rd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Roy sits at +1.57 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 98% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.55 to +1.59, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,978 donors and 3,697 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

+1.57

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.55 to +1.59. From 4,978 donors and 3,697 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Roy +1.6House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Roy, 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 Roy’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 Roy sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Roy +1.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Roy's CSIP score of +1.57 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Roy
House Republicans221+1.097%
All House439+0.399%
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 Roy 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 Roy.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Roy raised $783.2K in the 2026 cycle, 36% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 46% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 52% of itemized individual money came from Texas.

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
$783.2K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 302 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): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.2K (33.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $221.7K (28.3%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)PACs and other committees: $61.0K (7.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $238.3K (30.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)34 squares$262.2K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)28 squares$221.7K
  • PACs and other committees8 squares$61.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)30 squares$238.3K
Show the data
Sources of Roy's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$262.2K33.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$221.7K28.3%
PACs and other committees$61.0K7.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$238.3K30.4%
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: $5.1M$5.1M20202022 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20222024 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M20242026 cycle: $783.2K$783.2K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Roy's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.1M
2022 cycle$2.3M
2024 cycle$2.9M
2026 cycle$783.2K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 52% came from Texas.

  1. Texas$115.3K
  2. Maryland$29.0K
  3. Virginia$16.6K
  4. California$9,926
  5. Florida$9,250

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%
Roy
Median
2026
46%
9%
2024
34%
9%
2022
21%
9%
2020
25%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowRoyMedian
2026 cycle46%9%
2024 cycle34%9%
2022 cycle21%9%
2020 cycle25%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $3,500NHWashington: $825WAIdaho: $957IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $351MNIllinois: $1,642ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $6,587MINew York: $473NYRhode Island: $100RIMassachusetts: $315MAOregon: $95ORNevada: $350NVWyoming: $500WYSouth Dakota: $112SDIowa: $25IAIndiana: $200INOhio: $820OHPennsylvania: $2,451PANew Jersey: $1,325NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $9,926CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $455CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $1,050MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $16.6KVAMaryland: $29.0KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $650AZNew Mexico: $190NMKansas: $2,150KSArkansas: $500ARTennessee: $2,383TNNorth Carolina: $1,707NCSouth Carolina: $76SCDistrict of Columbia: $2,500DCOklahoma: $202OKLouisiana: $1,060LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $5,268ALGeorgia: $2,134GAHawaii: $10HITexas: $115.3KTXFlorida: $9,250FL
Show the data
Roy's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Texas$115.3K
Maryland$29.0K
Virginia$16.6K
California$9,926
Florida$9,250
Michigan$6,587
Alabama$5,268
New Hampshire$3,500
District of Columbia$2,500
Pennsylvania$2,451
Tennessee$2,383
Kansas$2,150
Georgia$2,134
North Carolina$1,707
Illinois$1,642
New Jersey$1,325
Louisiana$1,060
Missouri$1,050
Idaho$957
Washington$825
Ohio$820
Arizona$650
Wyoming$500
Arkansas$500
New York$473
Colorado$455
Minnesota$351
Nevada$350
Massachusetts$315
Oklahoma$202
Indiana$200
New Mexico$190
South Dakota$112
Rhode Island$100
Oregon$95
South Carolina$76
Iowa$25
Hawaii$10
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
MississippiNo data
302

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

52%

from Texas

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 10.0%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 41%41%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 28%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 17%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Roy's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.75: 10.0% between +0.75 and +1.00, 41% between +1.00 and +1.25, 28% between +1.25 and +1.50, 17% between +1.50 and +1.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0010.0%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2541%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5028%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.7517%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Roy’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Roy’s own score is +1.57.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$108.2K 155 donors
  2. OWNER$46.4K 7 donors
  3. CEO$11.7K 6 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$9,544 10 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$7,440 4 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. LETS GET TO WORK PAC$7,000
  2. MARK HARRIS FOR CONGRESS$7,000
  3. FREEDOM CAUCUS FUND$5,100
  4. FREEDOM FIRST PAC$5,000
  5. JOSH BRECHEEN FOR CONGRESS$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. SAULSBURY$45.4K 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Roy voted with the majority of House Republicans on 95.7% of party-line votes and missed 5.6% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Roy voted against the majority of House Republicans 125 times.

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

125

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 95.7%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 187th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Roy
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.3%
96.3%
184th of 221
Party unity
95.7%
97.1%
187th of 221
Show the data
Roy's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowRoyPeers
Attendance94.3%96.3%
Party unity95.7%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
NayAgainst 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
NayAgainst 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 Roy most often

  1. Andy BiggsR570 shared votes95%
  2. Eric BurlisonR606 shared votes94%
  3. Keith SelfR622 shared votes94%
  4. Eli CraneR631 shared votes94%
  5. Ralph NormanR571 shared votes94%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Roy least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD359 shared votes14%
  2. Nancy PelosiD579 shared votes14%
  3. Frederica WilsonD457 shared votes14%
  4. Brittany PettersenD535 shared votes14%
  5. Delia RamirezD607 shared votes14%
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

Roy sponsored 68 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 143 others. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 120th of 216).

The bills Roy 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

Sponsored68 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6868Sponsored, In committee: 6868Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 88Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored143 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 143143Cosponsored, In committee: 143143Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1313Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Roy sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6868800
Cosponsored1431431300
How to read the blocks

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

12%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 120th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Scott Perry46
  2. Andrew Ogles IV43
  3. Andy Biggs41
  4. Brandon Gill40
  5. Josh Brecheen38
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 Roy’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. 10377MAGA ActCosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 15, 2026
H.R. 10221Flock-Off ActCosponsorSep 2, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 2, 2026
H.R. 10132ARTICLE ONE ActSponsorAug 20, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementReferred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Rules, 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 20, 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. 10017Permanent CBDC Ban ActCosponsorAug 3, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Aug 3, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 58 times in 90 days. Roy’s official site had 41 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Roy posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    roy.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    41

    pages crawled

    58

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    chiproy.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    7

    pages crawled

    1

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

Images Roy posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, dated March 9, 2026. It is addressed to three government secretaries and contains several paragraphs about U.S. citizenship and immigration concerns. There are footnotes at the bottom.
    A formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, dated March 9, 2026. It is addressed to three government secretaries and contains several paragraphs about U.S. citizenship and immigration concerns. There are footnotes at the bottom.View post
  • A dark memorial poster shows a lit candle in front of a Star of David. Large lettering appears below, with a small organization logo near the bottom.
    A dark memorial poster shows a lit candle in front of a Star of David. Large lettering appears below, with a small organization logo near the bottom.View post
  • An infographic compares the number of bills passed by the Senate and House. The Senate is labeled as stalling and shows a shorter bar, while the House has a much taller gradient-colored bar. Cutout photos of legislators, a thumbs-down symbol, and a caucus logo appear on a gray grid background. The image contains prominent text.
    An infographic compares the number of bills passed by the Senate and House. The Senate is labeled as stalling and shows a shorter bar, while the House has a much taller gradient-colored bar. Cutout photos of legislators, a thumbs-down symbol, and a caucus logo appear on a gray grid background. The image contains prominent text.View post
  • An infographic compares the number of bills passed by the Senate and House. The Senate is labeled as stalling, with a much shorter bar showing 147 bills, while the House has a tall bar showing 674 bills and a callout saying it passed four times as many. Black-and-white cutout photos of lawmakers appear above the bars, with a House Freedom Caucus logo near the bottom. The background resembles gray graph paper with torn-paper edges.
    An infographic compares the number of bills passed by the Senate and House. The Senate is labeled as stalling, with a much shorter bar showing 147 bills, while the House has a tall bar showing 674 bills and a callout saying it passed four times as many. Black-and-white cutout photos of lawmakers appear above the bars, with a House Freedom Caucus logo near the bottom. The background resembles gray graph paper with torn-paper edges.View post
  • A woman and a man pose together on a brightly lit television studio set, standing in front of a large show logo. Text is visible on the backdrop.
    A woman and a man pose together on a brightly lit television studio set, standing in front of a large show logo. Text is visible on the backdrop.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 Roy 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
R000614
Bioguide
R000614
FEC candidate ids
H8TX21307

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