Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, North Carolina

Serving since Jan 6, 2015119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide T000476FEC S4NC00162

Portrait of Thom Tillis, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
12%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans

Attendance 88%; the average among Senate Republicans is 97.1%. Ranks 52nd of 53, where 1st has the highest attendance. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance is the share of the roll calls Tillis could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked among Senate Republicans. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. Tillis voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 32 times; party unity 96.4%, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (average 98.4%). 43% of Tillis’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from North Carolina, in the top tenth of Senate Republicans.

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

Attendance

88%

Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 52nd of 53 · 915 roll calls

Party unity

96.4%

Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 48th of 53 · 32 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

From North Carolina, 2026

43%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 5th of 50 Senate Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.70

More liberal than 87% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

Policy discussion

63%

Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 45th of 52

Bipartisanship

17%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 12th of 52

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Tillis says

Tillis attacks opponents personally more than 71% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 3.0% of 804 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 15th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Tillis’s 804 statements in the 119th Congress (536 posts on X, 153 Congressional Record speeches, 114 press releases, 1 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Tillis
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion509 statements
63%
70%
45th of 52
Credit claiming278 statements
35%
36%
31st of 52
Policy criticism136 statements
17%
17%
25th of 52
Bipartisanship134 statements
17%
13%
12th of 52
Personal attacks24 statements
3%
2%
15th of 52
Show the data
Tillis's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowTillisPeers
Policy discussion63%70%
Credit claiming35%36%
Policy criticism17%17%
Bipartisanship17%13%
Personal attacks3%2%
804

statements classified

536 posts on X, 153 Congressional Record speeches, 114 press releases, 1 newsletters.

posts on X: 536 (66.7%)posts on X 536Congressional Record speeches: 153 (19.0%)press releases: 114 (14.2%)newsletters: 1 (0.1%)
Show the data
Tillis's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X536
Congressional Record speeches153
press releases114
newsletters1
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Tillis used extreme labels in 2.0% of statements, below the peer average. 16 statements, most often aimed at sanctuary cities; peers 2.9%.

  1. “communist”5
  2. “radical”5
  3. “extreme”1
  4. “far left”1
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. sanctuary cities2
  2. Democrats1
  3. liberals1
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: 872025-02: 682025-03: 652025-04: 622025-05: 492025-06: 682025-07: 312025-08: 112025-09: 122025-10: 142025-11: 452025-12: 292026-01: 432026-02: 252026-03: 212026-04: 252026-05: 342026-06: 272026-07: 272026-08: 192026-09: 252026-10: 17peak 87 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 8.3% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.3% of 87Personal attacks, 2025-02: 4.4% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.2% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.2% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-07: 3.2% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2025-09: 8.3% of 12Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.2% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-02: 8.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.8% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-04: 4.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 17Policy criticismpeak 42.9% · Oct ’25 · latest 17.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.4% of 87Policy criticism, 2025-02: 13.2% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-03: 13.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-04: 16.1% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-05: 22.4% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-06: 25.0% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-07: 29.0% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-08: 9.1% of 11Policy criticism, 2025-09: 16.7% of 12Policy criticism, 2025-10: 42.9% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-11: 8.9% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-12: 3.5% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-01: 27.9% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-02: 20.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-03: 9.5% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-06: 7.4% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-07: 11.1% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-08: 15.8% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-09: 4.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-10: 17.6% of 17Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 100.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 77.0% of 87Policy discussion, 2025-02: 48.5% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-03: 55.4% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-04: 66.1% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-05: 65.3% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.2% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-07: 64.5% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-08: 72.7% of 11Policy discussion, 2025-09: 83.3% of 12Policy discussion, 2025-10: 71.4% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-11: 37.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-12: 72.4% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.4% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-02: 40.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-03: 66.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-04: 72.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-05: 47.1% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-06: 37.0% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-07: 59.3% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-08: 79.0% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-09: 60.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-10: 100.0% of 17Bipartisanshippeak 33.3% · Sep ’25 · latest 17.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 16.1% of 87Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 13.2% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 16.9% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 22.6% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 12.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 14.7% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 29.0% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 18.2% of 11Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 33.3% of 12Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 21.4% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.1% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 13.8% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 18.6% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 24.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 19.1% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 4.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 11.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.8% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 25.9% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 26.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 17.6% of 17Credit claimingpeak 51.6% · Apr ’25 · latest 23.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 47.1% of 87Credit claiming, 2025-02: 41.2% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-03: 32.3% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-04: 51.6% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-05: 30.6% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-06: 38.2% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-07: 48.4% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-08: 45.5% of 11Credit claiming, 2025-09: 41.7% of 12Credit claiming, 2025-10: 28.6% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-11: 17.8% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-12: 44.8% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-01: 37.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-02: 16.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-04: 24.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-05: 23.5% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-06: 22.2% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-07: 25.9% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-08: 31.6% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-09: 8.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-10: 23.5% of 17Extreme labelspeak 9.1% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.6% of 87Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-03: 6.2% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.2% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.1% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.4% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-08: 9.1% of 11Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 17Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Tillis, 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 ’25872.3%26.4%77.0%16.1%47.1%4.6%
Feb ’25684.4%13.2%48.5%13.2%41.2%0.0%
Mar ’25656.2%13.9%55.4%16.9%32.3%6.2%
Apr ’25623.2%16.1%66.1%22.6%51.6%3.2%
May ’25492.0%22.4%65.3%12.2%30.6%4.1%
Jun ’25682.9%25.0%66.2%14.7%38.2%4.4%
Jul ’25313.2%29.0%64.5%29.0%48.4%0.0%
Aug ’25110.0%9.1%72.7%18.2%45.5%9.1%
Sep ’25128.3%16.7%83.3%33.3%41.7%0.0%
Oct ’25140.0%42.9%71.4%21.4%28.6%0.0%
Nov ’25452.2%8.9%37.8%11.1%17.8%0.0%
Dec ’25290.0%3.5%72.4%13.8%44.8%0.0%
Jan ’26437.0%27.9%88.4%18.6%37.2%0.0%
Feb ’26258.0%20.0%40.0%24.0%16.0%0.0%
Mar ’26214.8%9.5%66.7%19.1%28.6%0.0%
Apr ’26254.0%0.0%72.0%4.0%24.0%0.0%
May ’26340.0%8.8%47.1%11.8%23.5%0.0%
Jun ’26270.0%7.4%37.0%14.8%22.2%0.0%
Jul ’26270.0%11.1%59.3%25.9%25.9%0.0%
Aug ’26190.0%15.8%79.0%26.3%31.6%0.0%
Sep ’26250.0%4.0%60.0%4.0%8.0%0.0%
Oct ’26170.0%17.6%100.0%17.6%23.5%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 Tillis’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Tillis, Colleagues Call for Investigation Into Starlink Disruptions in Ukraine WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), co-chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group (SNOG), led a bipartisan group of seven Senators in a letter to Department of Defense’s Ins…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Personal attacks

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

Apr 30, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Law; target: Greg Lindberg · Source

Extreme label

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

Aug 25, 2025 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Law; extreme label “extreme, radical” aimed at Democrats, liberals · 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · target: Greg LindbergSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, I come to the floor today to maybe lower my own temperature but explain what I was getting at in the Judiciary Committee hearing this morning. We had the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem before the committee, and I have not been shy about some of my criticism for the Secretary of Homeland Security really on two fronts. I think I was primarily focused on--what I wanted to focus on was the fail…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Emergency Management · Economics and Public Finance · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law EnforcementSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, this is a case where we had members on the committee responding to news reports that were proven wrong. Folks, I thought this was probably going to end this way, and it is one of the reasons why I decided to invite myself to a tour when the President went to this building to take a look at it. I was there with the President. He was very kind, shook my hand, and welcomed me to participate in this tour.…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Finance and Financial Sector · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · LawSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: OrbánSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, nearly a year ago, Secretary Noem visited Western North Carolina to see the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene firsthand. That day, the Secretary told the crowd in Bat Cave, NC, that ``the previous administration failed in many areas and we're going to learn from that and do better,'' a sentiment that I shared wholeheartedly. Secretary Noem highlighted some of the actions taken in the early days of…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Emergency Management · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Government Operations and Politics · Transportation and Public Works · Water Resources Development · Energy · Environmental Protection · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Crime and Law EnforcementSource

All 804 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: 536 posts on X, 153 Congressional Record speeches, 114 press releases, 1 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Tillis talks about most: 22% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 22nd of 52).

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 Tillis talks about. The bills Tillis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Tillis talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Tillis
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security111 statements
22%
25%
Government Operations and Politics91 statements
18%
19%
Crime and Law Enforcement90 statements
18%
11%
International Affairs85 statements
17%
11%
Economics and Public Finance75 statements
15%
17%
Show the data
Policy areas Tillis talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowTillisPeers
Armed Forces and National Security22%25%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
Crime and Law Enforcement18%11%
International Affairs17%11%
Economics and Public Finance15%17%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Tillis’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (Senate Republicans 25%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 8%)7%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 11%)7%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 11%)18%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 10% (Senate Republicans 8%)10%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 17% (Senate Republicans 11%)17%International Affairs, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 8%)9%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 15% (Senate Republicans 17%)15%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Republicans 1%)0%
Show the data
Tillis's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security22%25%7%8%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%7%11%
Crime and Law Enforcement18%11%10%8%
International Affairs17%11%9%8%
Economics and Public Finance15%17%0%1%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 22nd of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Tillis sits at +0.70 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 87% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.69 to +0.71, which understates the uncertainty; from 18,573 donors and 4,054 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”.

+0.70

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.69 to +0.71. From 18,573 donors and 4,054 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Tillis +0.7Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Tillis, 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 Tillis’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 Tillis sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Tillis +0.7All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Tillis's CSIP score of +0.70 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Tillis
Senate Republicans51+1.012%
All Senate98+0.454%
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 Tillis 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 Tillis.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Tillis raised $4.7M in the 2026 cycle, above the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 4.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 43% of itemized individual money came from North Carolina.

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
$4.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,453 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.5M (53.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $120.4K (2.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $120.4K (2.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $120.4K (2.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (31.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $584.8K (12.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)53 squares$2.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$120.4K
  • PACs and other committees32 squares$1.5M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)12 squares$584.8K
Show the data
Sources of Tillis's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.5M53.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$120.4K2.6%
PACs and other committees$1.5M31.5%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$584.8K12.4%
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $23.3M$23.3M20202022 cycle: $921.8K$921.8K20222024 cycle: $2.5M$2.5M20242026 cycle: $4.7M$4.7M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Tillis's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$23.3M
2022 cycle$921.8K
2024 cycle$2.5M
2026 cycle$4.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 43% came from North Carolina.

  1. North Carolina$669.3K
  2. Virginia$149.5K
  3. California$148.0K
  4. District of Columbia$79.7K
  5. Illinois$65.6K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Tillis
Median
2026
5%
17%
2024
4%
17%
2022
38%
17%
2020
31%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowTillisMedian
2026 cycle5%17%
2024 cycle4%17%
2022 cycle38%17%
2020 cycle31%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $300AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $449NHWashington: $5,944WAIdaho: $1,977IDMontana: $1,000MTNorth Dakota: $500NDMinnesota: $8,477MNIllinois: $65.6KILWisconsin: $4,890WIMichigan: $16.2KMINew York: $22.7KNYRhode Island: $5,500RIMassachusetts: $48.3KMAOregon: $4,625ORNevada: $9,190NVWyoming: $2,530WYSouth Dakota: $500SDIowa: $800IAIndiana: $2,465INOhio: $24.4KOHPennsylvania: $1,744PANew Jersey: $7,495NJConnecticut: $2,350CTCalifornia: $148.0KCAUtah: $5,983UTColorado: $60.2KCONebraska: $1,217NEMissouri: $19.4KMOKentucky: $4,298KYWest Virginia: $1,990WVVirginia: $149.5KVAMaryland: $46.3KMDDelaware: $3,500DEArizona: $13.7KAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $1,991KSArkansas: $11.3KARTennessee: $16.3KTNNorth Carolina: $669.3KNCSouth Carolina: $25.2KSCDistrict of Columbia: $79.7KDCOklahoma: $12.6KOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $8,776ALGeorgia: $31.5KGAHawaii: $500HITexas: $23.1KTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Tillis's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
North Carolina$669.3K
Virginia$149.5K
California$148.0K
District of Columbia$79.7K
Illinois$65.6K
Colorado$60.2K
Massachusetts$48.3K
Maryland$46.3K
Georgia$31.5K
South Carolina$25.2K
Ohio$24.4K
Texas$23.1K
New York$22.7K
Missouri$19.4K
Tennessee$16.3K
Michigan$16.2K
Arizona$13.7K
Oklahoma$12.6K
Arkansas$11.3K
Nevada$9,190
Alabama$8,776
Minnesota$8,477
New Jersey$7,495
Utah$5,983
Washington$5,944
Rhode Island$5,500
Wisconsin$4,890
Oregon$4,625
Kentucky$4,298
Delaware$3,500
Wyoming$2,530
Indiana$2,465
Connecticut$2,350
Kansas$1,991
West Virginia$1,990
Idaho$1,977
Pennsylvania$1,744
Nebraska$1,217
Montana$1,000
Iowa$800
North Dakota$500
South Dakota$500
Hawaii$500
New Hampshire$449
Alaska$300
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New MexicoNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
FloridaNo data
1,453

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

43%

from North Carolina

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.5%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.7%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 9.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 29%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 40%40%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 7.4%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Tillis's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.75: 5.2% between −0.25 and 0.00, 9.2% between +0.25 and +0.50, 29% between +0.50 and +0.75, 40% between +0.75 and +1.00, 7.4% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.5%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.7%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.509.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7529%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0040%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.257.4%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Tillis’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Tillis’s own score is +0.70.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$268.9K 290 donors
  2. CEO$229.3K 84 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$186.5K 94 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$157.8K 59 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$92.8K 36 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. THE PREMIER, INC. EMPLOYEES' CIVIC ACTION FUND$10.0K
  2. U.S. BANCORP FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC)$7,500
  4. RYAN LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RYANPAC)$7,500
  5. PINE GATE RENEWABLES, LLC POWER PAC$7,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CORNING$19.5K 18 donors
  2. CLEAN ENERGY$19.0K 14 donors
  3. SOUTHERN ENERGY MANAGEMENT$17.5K 4 donors
  4. WEBB CREEK$16.7K 3 donors
  5. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP$15.0K 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Tillis voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 96.4% of party-line votes and missed 12% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Tillis voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 32 times.

915 roll calls Tillis could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Tillis voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

32

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 96.4%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 48th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Tillis
Peers
Rank
Attendance
88%
97.1%
52nd of 53
Party unity
96.4%
98.4%
48th of 53
Show the data
Tillis's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowTillisPeers
Attendance88%97.1%
Party unity96.4%98.4%
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 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
YeaAgainst majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
Did not vote—Bill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
Did not vote—Resolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
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 Tillis most often

  1. Markwayne MullinR608 shared votes97%
  2. Roger WickerR772 shared votes97%
  3. John BoozmanR794 shared votes96%
  4. Mike RoundsR794 shared votes96%
  5. Shelley CapitoR786 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Tillis least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD794 shared votes5.4%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD788 shared votes5.8%
  3. Bernie SandersI747 shared votes6.0%
  4. Christopher MurphyD786 shared votes6.6%
  5. Jeff MerkleyD796 shared votes7.7%
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

Tillis sponsored 60 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 399 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 31st of 51).

The bills Tillis 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

Sponsored60 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6060Sponsored, In committee: 6060Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored399 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 399399Cosponsored, In committee: 394394Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 8686Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 99Cosponsored, Became law: 88IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Tillis sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6060611
Cosponsored3993948698
How to read the blocks

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

17%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 31st of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn93
  2. Christopher Coons87
  3. Ted Budd84
  4. John Cornyn63
  5. Katie Britt55
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 Tillis’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
S. 5623Reaffirming Extended Nuclear Deterrence Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 946A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".SponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
S. 5587National Critical Minerals Council ActCosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeEnergyRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
S. 5529DEFEND IP ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCommerceRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 64 times in 90 days. Tillis’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Tillis posted on Oct 21, 2026.

The lab crawls Tillis’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 Tillis 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.

Social accounts

Images Tillis posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A dictionary-style entry for the word “humanitarian,” showing its part of speech, pronunciation guides with audio icons, a proficiency label, and a definition. There is also a button to add the word to a list.
    A dictionary-style entry for the word “humanitarian,” showing its part of speech, pronunciation guides with audio icons, a proficiency label, and a definition. There is also a button to add the word to a list.View post
  • A patriotic event flyer for a congressional office’s service academy information day. It features American flag and Capitol imagery, logos for five U.S. service academies, event details, registration information, and a QR code. Text appears throughout.
    A patriotic event flyer for a congressional office’s service academy information day. It features American flag and Capitol imagery, logos for five U.S. service academies, event details, registration information, and a QR code. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A promotional softball game graphic shows players celebrating on a field in front of a crowd, with a large scoreboard graphic in the foreground. Text and hand-drawn markings appear in the image.
    A promotional softball game graphic shows players celebrating on a field in front of a crowd, with a large scoreboard graphic in the foreground. Text and hand-drawn markings appear in the image.View post
  • A man in a dark suit and a woman in a bright blue outfit pose for a photograph in an office, in front of a large circular North Carolina state seal. There is text on the seal and on papers on a nearby desk.
    A man in a dark suit and a woman in a bright blue outfit pose for a photograph in an office, in front of a large circular North Carolina state seal. There is text on the seal and on papers on a nearby desk.View post
  • A man and a woman sit close together on a blue seat inside a vehicle, smiling and leaning their heads together. The woman wears red, and the man wears a dark suit and striped tie. No visible text.
    A man and a woman sit close together on a blue seat inside a vehicle, smiling and leaning their heads together. The woman wears red, and the man wears a dark suit and striped tie. No visible text.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 Tillis is most unusual among Senate 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
T000476
Bioguide
T000476
FEC candidate ids
S4NC00162

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