12% of 999 statements contain a personal attack (119 statements); the average for House Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 3rd of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Stefanik’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against House Republicans. Stefanik missed 16% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (average 96.3%). 60% of Stefanik’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of House Republicans (median 9.4%).
The measures on which Stefanik 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.
Personal attacks
House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 3rd of 221
Attendance
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 215th of 221 · 674 roll calls
Small donations, 2026
House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 6th of 220
Extreme labels
House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 5th of 221
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 82% of House Republicans · ± 0.01
Raised, 2026
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 43rd of 220
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Stefanik, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Stefanik is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Stefanik attacks opponents personally more than 98% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 12% of 999 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 3rd of 221.
An AI model reads each of Stefanik’s 999 statements in the 119th Congress (666 posts on X, 219 press releases, 74 newsletters, 40 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Stefanik | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 72% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 44% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 12% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 9% | 9% |
statements classified
666 posts on X, 219 press releases, 74 newsletters, 40 Congressional Record speeches.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 666 |
| press releases | 219 |
| newsletters | 74 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 40 |
The thick bar is Stefanik; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Stefanik does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Stefanik used extreme labels in 10% of statements, 3.4 times the peer average. 103 statements, most often aimed at Kathy Hochul; peers 3.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 54.5% | 4.5% | 13.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 70.0% | 10.0% | 40.0% | 40.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 54 | 1.8% | 0.0% | 61.1% | 0.0% | 55.6% | 3.7% |
| Apr ’25 | 172 | 4.1% | 11.6% | 69.8% | 13.4% | 50.6% | 8.1% |
| May ’25 | 187 | 15.5% | 13.9% | 71.7% | 4.3% | 35.8% | 13.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 112 | 13.4% | 19.6% | 64.3% | 3.6% | 33.9% | 13.4% |
| Jul ’25 | 103 | 24.3% | 18.4% | 75.7% | 3.9% | 42.7% | 9.7% |
| Aug ’25 | 53 | 22.6% | 28.3% | 75.5% | 5.7% | 30.2% | 15.1% |
| Sep ’25 | 84 | 17.9% | 14.3% | 79.8% | 14.3% | 51.2% | 23.8% |
| Oct ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 16.0% | 68.0% | 24.0% | 48.0% | 8.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 36 | 11.1% | 8.3% | 83.3% | 19.4% | 50.0% | 5.6% |
| Dec ’25 | 51 | 19.6% | 11.8% | 86.3% | 11.8% | 56.9% | 2.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 71.4% | 3.6% | 57.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 31 | 0.0% | 16.1% | 61.3% | 35.5% | 48.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 35.3% | 88.2% | 11.8% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 7 months are hatched here; 3 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
Stefanik Leads Intelligence Committee 9/11 Commission Hearing on Emerging Threats WASHINGTON, D.C. - In case you missed it, House Republican Leadership Chairwoman Elise Stefanik led an Intelligence Committee hearing on new and emerging threat streams since the attacks on 9/11. This hearing is part…
Jul 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 17, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Health; target: Kathy Hochul · Source
Extreme label
Stefanik, NY House Republican Delegation Urge Hochul to Veto Detrimental Anti-100 Foot Rule Legislation that Would Gut Energy Affordability and Grid Reliability WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21), Chairwoman of House Republican Leadership, along with Congressman Nick Langworthy…
Dec 16, 2025 · Press releases · policy discussion; Energy; Housing and Community Development; extreme label “radical” aimed at gas ban · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Kathy HochulSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Economics and Public Finance · Taxation · target: Kathy HochulSource
Press releases
Stefanik Demands Federal Investigation into Hochul’s NYS DOH Medicaid Mismanagement as North Country Hospitals Face Closure Following Funding Lapse WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Chairwoman of House Republican Leadership, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi urgently requesting the Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch an immediate investigation into the New York State Departm…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Kathy HochulSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · International Affairs · target: Kathy HochulSource
Press releases
Stefanik, Jordan Launch Probe of Hochul Admin, Demand Termination of NYS Funding for CCP-Linked Orgs as Governor's Former Aide and Alleged Chinese Spy Faces Corruption Charges WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Chairwoman of House Republican Leadership, along with Congressman Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul citing concern of widespr…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · International Affairs · Law · Taxation · target: Kathy HochulSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 666 posts on X, 219 press releases, 74 newsletters, 40 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Stefanik talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 115th 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 Stefanik talks about. The bills Stefanik sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Stefanik | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 24% |
| Education | 22% | 8% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 19% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 19% |
The thick bar is the share of Stefanik’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.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 24% | 11% | 8% |
| Education | 22% | 8% | 6% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 12% | 11% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 19% | 1% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 19% | 15% | 12% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 115th of 221.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Stefanik legislates on exactly the areas Stefanik 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 Stefanik sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Stefanik sits at +0.75 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 82% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.74 to +0.76, which understates the uncertainty; from 21,133 donors and 6,243 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.74 to +0.76. From 21,133 donors and 6,243 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Stefanik, 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 Stefanik’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Stefanik |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 18% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 59% |
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 Stefanik 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 Stefanik.
Stefanik raised $5.0M in the 2026 cycle, 2.3 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 60% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 37% 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.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 2,408 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $980.0K | 19.6% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $1.5M | 29.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $289.6K | 5.8% |
| Party committees | $20.0K | 0.4% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $2.3M | 45.2% |
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.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $13.3M |
| 2022 cycle | $9.5M |
| 2024 cycle | $15.5M |
| 2026 cycle | $5.0M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 37% came from New York.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
| Row | Stefanik | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 60% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 48% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 50% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 58% | 9% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $241.0K |
| California | $62.6K |
| Texas | $58.2K |
| Michigan | $36.2K |
| Pennsylvania | $30.4K |
| New Jersey | $28.2K |
| Maryland | $27.8K |
| Virginia | $21.1K |
| Illinois | $16.4K |
| Tennessee | $13.7K |
| Georgia | $9,020 |
| North Carolina | $8,644 |
| Louisiana | $7,865 |
| Connecticut | $7,668 |
| Indiana | $7,244 |
| Minnesota | $6,875 |
| Washington | $6,656 |
| Ohio | $6,639 |
| Oregon | $6,510 |
| Oklahoma | $5,877 |
| Massachusetts | $5,842 |
| Wisconsin | $5,770 |
| Idaho | $5,669 |
| Arizona | $5,652 |
| Iowa | $5,072 |
| Missouri | $4,132 |
| Montana | $4,090 |
| Alabama | $4,029 |
| South Carolina | $3,957 |
| Colorado | $3,950 |
| New Hampshire | $2,931 |
| New Mexico | $2,664 |
| Mississippi | $2,605 |
| Arkansas | $2,499 |
| South Dakota | $2,385 |
| District of Columbia | $2,000 |
| Alaska | $1,935 |
| Utah | $1,722 |
| Nebraska | $1,370 |
| Wyoming | $1,300 |
| Delaware | $1,184 |
| West Virginia | $1,181 |
| Nevada | $1,146 |
| Hawaii | $1,050 |
| Maine | $891 |
| Kentucky | $794 |
| Rhode Island | $700 |
| Vermont | $445 |
| North Dakota | $190 |
| Kansas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from New York
Of itemized individual dollars
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.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.3% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 1.4% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 1.7% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 1.8% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 4.0% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 12% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 50% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 28% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.5% |
| CSIP +1.50 to +1.75 | 0.0% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Stefanik’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Stefanik’s own score is +0.75.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Stefanik voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.2% of party-line votes and missed 16% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Stefanik voted against the majority of House Republicans 14 times.
674 roll calls Stefanik 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 Stefanik voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 97.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 148th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Stefanik, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Stefanik | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 84% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 97.2% | 97.1% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Stefanik most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Stefanik least often
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.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Stefanik sponsored 29 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 242 others. 24% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 47th of 216).
The bills Stefanik 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.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 29 | 29 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 242 | 242 | 24 | 1 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Stefanik sponsored, ochre blocks bills Stefanik cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 47th of 216.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Stefanik, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
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 Stefanik’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10779 | To 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". | Cosponsor | Oct 9, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 9, 2026 |
| H.R. 10314 | To direct the Secretary of Education to conduct a study on the efforts of States, local educational agencies, and public elementary and secondary schools to educate students about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Sep 8, 2026 | In committee | Education | Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 8, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1511 | Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' families | Cosponsor | Sep 3, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 3, 2026 |
| H.R. 9896 | WINGS Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Jul 23, 2026 | In committee | Education | Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Jul 23, 2026 |
| H.R. 9905 | To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 114 John Street in New York, New York, as the "Jack Greenberg Post Office". | Cosponsor | Jul 23, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Jul 23, 2026 |
A site that changed 106 times in 90 days. Stefanik’s official site had 50 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Stefanik posted on Mar 23, 2026.
The lab crawls Stefanik’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 Stefanik posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
The latest 24, with model-written 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.
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 is the measure on which Stefanik 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
