Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, California’s 45th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide T000491FEC H4CA45170

Portrait of Derek Tran, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.2%
of statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats

0.2% of 1,257 statements use an extreme label (3 statements); the average for House Democrats is 1.9%. Ranks 196th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at communist Vietnam.

An AI model reads each of Tran’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Tran raised $6.0M in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of House Democrats (median $2.0M). Tran voted against the majority of House Democrats 40 times; party unity 91.6%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%).

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

Attendance

99.8%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 23rd of 217 · 674 roll calls

Extreme labels

0.2%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 196th of 216

Raised, 2026

$6.0M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 21st of 214

Party unity

91.6%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 193rd of 217 · 40 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Personal attacks

1.2%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 188th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.87

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Tran says

Tran attacks opponents personally less than 86% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 1.2% of 1,257 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 188th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Tran’s 1,257 statements in the 119th Congress (1,074 posts on X, 104 press releases, 49 newsletters, 30 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Tran
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion986 statements
78%
73%
56th of 216
Credit claiming289 statements
23%
23%
97th of 216
Policy criticism183 statements
15%
28%
188th of 216
Bipartisanship113 statements
9%
10%
100th of 216
Personal attacks15 statements
1%
7%
188th of 216
Show the data
Tran's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowTranPeers
Policy discussion78%73%
Credit claiming23%23%
Policy criticism15%28%
Bipartisanship9%10%
Personal attacks1%7%
1,257

statements classified

1,074 posts on X, 104 press releases, 49 newsletters, 30 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,074 (85.4%)posts on X 1,074press releases: 104 (8.3%)newsletters: 49 (3.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 30 (2.4%)
Show the data
Tran's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,074
press releases104
newsletters49
Congressional Record speeches30
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Tran used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 13% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at communist Vietnam; peers 1.9%.

  1. “communist”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. communist Vietnam1
  2. Socialist Republic1
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: 402025-02: 342025-03: 392025-04: 422025-05: 832025-06: 812025-07: 802025-08: 472025-09: 632025-10: 802025-11: 562025-12: 472026-01: 492026-02: 552026-03: 512026-04: 952026-05: 1042026-06: 512026-07: 572026-08: 432026-09: 402026-10: 20peak 104 · May ’26Personal attackspeak 8.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-02: 8.8% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.6% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.1% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-02: 5.5% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-04: 3.2% of 95Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.0% of 104Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-09: 2.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 20Policy criticismpeak 31.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 10.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 5.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-02: 23.5% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-03: 20.5% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-04: 7.1% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-05: 9.6% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-06: 13.6% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-07: 11.3% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.9% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.9% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-10: 31.3% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-11: 17.9% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-12: 12.8% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.1% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-02: 14.5% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-03: 3.9% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-04: 17.9% of 95Policy criticism, 2026-05: 5.8% of 104Policy criticism, 2026-06: 17.6% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-07: 19.3% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-08: 25.6% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-09: 20.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.0% of 20Policy discussionpeak 93.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 85.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 50.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-02: 91.2% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-03: 76.9% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-04: 47.6% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-05: 72.3% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.0% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-07: 77.5% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-08: 68.1% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-09: 77.8% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-10: 86.3% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-11: 80.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-12: 66.0% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-01: 71.4% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-02: 70.9% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-03: 82.3% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-04: 83.2% of 95Policy discussion, 2026-05: 87.5% of 104Policy discussion, 2026-06: 92.2% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-07: 93.0% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.4% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-09: 80.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-10: 85.0% of 20Bipartisanshippeak 22.8% · Jul ’26 · latest 5.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 5.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 14.7% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 12.8% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 7.1% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.4% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 7.4% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.0% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 10.0% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 1.8% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 4.3% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 12.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 3.6% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 15.7% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 10.5% of 95Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.6% of 104Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 11.8% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 22.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 20.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 5.0% of 20Credit claimingpeak 45.0% · Sep ’26 · latest 45.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 10.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-02: 32.4% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-03: 15.4% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-04: 11.9% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-05: 9.6% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-06: 16.1% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-07: 23.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-08: 12.8% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-09: 23.8% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-10: 10.0% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-11: 17.9% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-12: 21.3% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.3% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-02: 16.4% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-03: 41.2% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-04: 30.5% of 95Credit claiming, 2026-05: 23.1% of 104Credit claiming, 2026-06: 39.2% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-07: 38.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-08: 32.6% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-09: 45.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-10: 45.0% of 20Extreme labelspeak 4.8% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.8% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.8% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 95Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 104Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 20Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Tran, 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 ’25400.0%5.0%50.0%5.0%10.0%0.0%
Feb ’25348.8%23.5%91.2%14.7%32.4%0.0%
Mar ’25392.6%20.5%76.9%12.8%15.4%0.0%
Apr ’25420.0%7.1%47.6%7.1%11.9%4.8%
May ’25830.0%9.6%72.3%8.4%9.6%0.0%
Jun ’25810.0%13.6%79.0%7.4%16.1%0.0%
Jul ’25800.0%11.3%77.5%5.0%23.8%0.0%
Aug ’25470.0%14.9%68.1%0.0%12.8%0.0%
Sep ’25630.0%15.9%77.8%7.9%23.8%0.0%
Oct ’25801.3%31.3%86.3%10.0%10.0%0.0%
Nov ’25560.0%17.9%80.4%1.8%17.9%0.0%
Dec ’25472.1%12.8%66.0%4.3%21.3%0.0%
Jan ’26490.0%4.1%71.4%12.2%16.3%0.0%
Feb ’26555.5%14.5%70.9%3.6%16.4%1.8%
Mar ’26510.0%3.9%82.3%15.7%41.2%0.0%
Apr ’26953.2%17.9%83.2%10.5%30.5%0.0%
May ’261041.0%5.8%87.5%10.6%23.1%0.0%
Jun ’26512.0%17.6%92.2%11.8%39.2%0.0%
Jul ’26570.0%19.3%93.0%22.8%38.6%0.0%
Aug ’26430.0%25.6%88.4%0.0%32.6%0.0%
Sep ’26402.5%20.0%80.0%20.0%45.0%0.0%
Oct ’26200.0%10.0%85.0%5.0%45.0%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 Tran’s words

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

Policy criticism

Representative Tran Secures State Department Response on Vietnam's Human Rights Abuses Washington, D.C. – During last month’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), U.S. Representative Derek Tran (CA-45) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State demanding the U.S. government hold the communist…

Oct 23, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Immigration; International Affairs · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 16, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Saigon Broadcasting Television Network, otherwise known as SBTN. SBTN, the first 24-hour Vietnamese-language television channel specifically for overseas audiences, provides premier news coverage and entertainment programs to million…

Feb 26, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; credit claiming; Science, Technology, Communications; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “communist” aimed at communist Vietnam, Socialist Republic · 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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Press releases

    ICYMI: Representative Derek Tran Presses Secretary Pete Hegseth on Firing of Top General Amid Iran War Washington, DC – In case you missed it, U.S. Representative Derek Tran (CA-45) questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as he testified before the House Armed Services Committee. Representative Tran demanded answers about Secretary Hegseth’s decision to fire Army Chief of Staff General Randy George amid the ongoing…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Education · Law · Labor and Employment · target: Pete HegsethSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Pete HegsethSource

All 1,257 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,074 posts on X, 104 press releases, 49 newsletters, 30 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Tran talks about most: 20% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 94th of 216).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Tran talks about. The bills Tran sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Tran talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Tran
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security202 statements
20%
16%
Health201 statements
20%
26%
Economics and Public Finance175 statements
18%
20%
Emergency Management134 statements
14%
5%
Government Operations and Politics128 statements
13%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Tran talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowTranPeers
Armed Forces and National Security20%16%
Health20%26%
Economics and Public Finance18%20%
Emergency Management14%5%
Government Operations and Politics13%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Tran’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 16%)20%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 16% (House Democrats 7%)16%HealthHealth, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 26%)20%Health, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 16%)11%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 20%)18%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Emergency ManagementEmergency Management, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 5%)14%Emergency Management, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 13% (House Democrats 20%)13%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 11%)9%
Show the data
Tran's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security20%16%16%7%
Health20%26%11%16%
Economics and Public Finance18%20%1%1%
Emergency Management14%5%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics13%20%9%11%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 94th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Tran sits at −0.87 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 65% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.90 to −0.85, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,849 donors and 669 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”.

−0.87

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.90 to −0.85. From 4,849 donors and 669 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Tran −0.9House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Tran, 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 Tran’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 Tran sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Tran −0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Tran's CSIP score of −0.87 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Tran
House Democrats217−1.065%
All House439+0.332%
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 Tran 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 Tran.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Tran raised $6.0M in the 2026 cycle, 3.0 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 22% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 63% of itemized individual money came from California.

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
$6.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,182 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (54.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $943.5K (15.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (22.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $460.8K (7.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)54 squares$3.3M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)16 squares$943.5K
  • PACs and other committees22 squares$1.3M
  • Party committees$7,441
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)8 squares$460.8K
Show the data
Sources of Tran's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.3M54.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$943.5K15.8%
PACs and other committees$1.3M22.0%
Party committees$7,4410.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$460.8K7.7%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $6.5M$6.5M20242026 cycle: $6.0M$6.0M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Tran's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$6.5M
2026 cycle$6.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 63% came from California.

  1. California$1.7M
  2. Massachusetts$199.0K
  3. New York$161.8K
  4. Maryland$99.9K
  5. District of Columbia$97.1K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Tran
Median
2026
22%
13%
2024
24%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowTranMedian
2026 cycle22%13%
2024 cycle24%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $1,883MEVermont: $1,400VTNew Hampshire: $7,858NHWashington: $22.0KWAIdaho: $7,000IDMontana: $14.9KMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $15.1KMNIllinois: $22.3KILWisconsin: $250WIMichigan: $75MINew York: $161.8KNYRhode Island: $5,357RIMassachusetts: $199.0KMAOregon: $31.0KORNevada: $12.7KNVWyoming: $3,500WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $4,039INOhio: $10.5KOHPennsylvania: $14.7KPANew Jersey: $13.1KNJConnecticut: $14.3KCTCalifornia: $1.7MCAUtah: $6,000UTColorado: $24.8KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $7,150MOKentucky: $8,500KYWest Virginia: $250WVVirginia: $55.5KVAMaryland: $99.9KMDDelaware: $364DEArizona: $11.6KAZNew Mexico: $8,342NMKansas: $540KSArkansas: $75ARTennessee: $1,250TNNorth Carolina: $3,318NCSouth Carolina: $5,642SCDistrict of Columbia: $97.1KDCOklahoma: $1,703OKLouisiana: $1,500LAMississippi: $3,500MSAlabama: $70ALGeorgia: $1,285GAHawaii: $5,454HITexas: $59.1KTXFlorida: $55.9KFL
Show the data
Tran's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$1.7M
Massachusetts$199.0K
New York$161.8K
Maryland$99.9K
District of Columbia$97.1K
Texas$59.1K
Florida$55.9K
Virginia$55.5K
Oregon$31.0K
Colorado$24.8K
Illinois$22.3K
Washington$22.0K
Minnesota$15.1K
Montana$14.9K
Pennsylvania$14.7K
Connecticut$14.3K
New Jersey$13.1K
Nevada$12.7K
Arizona$11.6K
Ohio$10.5K
Kentucky$8,500
New Mexico$8,342
New Hampshire$7,858
Missouri$7,150
Idaho$7,000
Utah$6,000
South Carolina$5,642
Hawaii$5,454
Rhode Island$5,357
Indiana$4,039
Wyoming$3,500
Mississippi$3,500
North Carolina$3,318
Maine$1,883
Oklahoma$1,703
Louisiana$1,500
Vermont$1,400
Georgia$1,285
Tennessee$1,250
Kansas$540
Delaware$364
Wisconsin$250
West Virginia$250
Michigan$75
Arkansas$75
Alabama$70
AlaskaNo data
North DakotaNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
2,182

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

63%

from California

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.2%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 22%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 70%70%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 5.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.3%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Tran's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 22% between −1.25 and −1.00, 70% between −1.00 and −0.75, 5.5% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.2%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0022%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7570%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.505.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Tran’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Tran’s own score is −0.87.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$687.3K 792 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$593.7K 294 donors
  3. RETIRED$271.8K 219 donors
  4. CEO$100.5K 48 donors
  5. PRINCIPAL$58.9K 63 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ZINC COLLECTIVE PAC$16.7K
  2. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ACTS LAW$21.5K 4 donors
  2. GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER LLP$19.5K 4 donors
  3. DORDICK LAW CORP$17.5K 3 donors
  4. TAYLOR & RING$15.0K 3 donors
  5. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP$13.8K 10 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Tran voted with the majority of House Democrats on 91.6% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Tran voted against the majority of House Democrats 40 times.

674 roll calls Tran could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Tran voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

40

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 91.6%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 193rd of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Tran
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
96.9%
23rd of 217
Party unity
91.6%
96.4%
193rd of 217
Show the data
Tran's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowTranPeers
Attendance99.8%96.9%
Party unity91.6%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
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
NayWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Tran most often

  1. Chris PappasD668 shared votes97%
  2. Eric SorensenD664 shared votes97%
  3. Maggie GoodlanderD665 shared votes97%
  4. Greg StantonD655 shared votes96%
  5. Nicole (Nikki) BudzinskiD669 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Tran least often

  1. Chip RoyR631 shared votes20%
  2. Eric BurlisonR638 shared votes22%
  3. Keith SelfR655 shared votes22%
  4. Andy BiggsR604 shared votes23%
  5. Ralph NormanR594 shared votes23%
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

Tran sponsored 17 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 335 others. 5.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 65th of 207).

The bills Tran 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

Sponsored17 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1717Sponsored, In committee: 1717Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored335 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 335335Cosponsored, In committee: 335335Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2323Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Tran sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1717100
Cosponsored3353352311
How to read the blocks

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

5.9%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 65th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eugene Vindman43
  2. Dave Min18
  3. Joe Neguse16
  4. Susie Lee14
  5. Ted Lieu14
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 Tran’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. 10642STS ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026
H.Res. 1593Recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10613Housing COST ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1574Expressing support for the recognition of September 27, 2026, to October 3, 2026, as "Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Week".CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10497Protect Our Polls ActCosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 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. Sep 17, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 94 times in 90 days. Tran’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Tran posted on Oct 13, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Tran posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political quote graphic with a dark blue and gray background, a white rectangular border, and a photograph of the U.S. Capitol building with an American flag. A campaign-style logo appears at the top, and a large block of quoted text is centered over the image.
    A political quote graphic with a dark blue and gray background, a white rectangular border, and a photograph of the U.S. Capitol building with an American flag. A campaign-style logo appears at the top, and a large block of quoted text is centered over the image.View post
  • A political statement graphic from Representative Derek Tran about a $125 million settlement involving GKN and Orange County. It has a dark blue and gold background, a white border, and a faded image of a government building behind the text.
    A political statement graphic from Representative Derek Tran about a $125 million settlement involving GKN and Orange County. It has a dark blue and gold background, a white border, and a faded image of a government building behind the text.View post
  • A political news graphic with a faded U.S. Capitol building in the background and two circular photos near the top: one showing people at a café counter and another showing a man speaking at a podium with people behind him. Large headline and supporting text appear below, along with a representative's logo.
    A political news graphic with a faded U.S. Capitol building in the background and two circular photos near the top: one showing people at a café counter and another showing a man speaking at a podium with people behind him. Large headline and supporting text appear below, along with a representative's logo.View post
  • A white informational chart showing United States passport fees. It includes separate tables for adult and minor applicants, with expedited and routine service prices, plus optional fees. The chart uses colored section headers and contains extensive text.
    A white informational chart showing United States passport fees. It includes separate tables for adult and minor applicants, with expedited and routine service prices, plus optional fees. The chart uses colored section headers and contains extensive text.View post
  • A Vietnamese-language flyer advertising a U.S. passport fair at The Center at Founder's Village in Fountain Valley. It includes event details, application requirements, passport information, processing times, and a U.S. Department of State banner and seal. The image contains extensive text.
    A Vietnamese-language flyer advertising a U.S. passport fair at The Center at Founder's Village in Fountain Valley. It includes event details, application requirements, passport information, processing times, and a U.S. Department of State banner and seal. The image contains extensive 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 Tran is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
T000491
Bioguide
T000491
FEC candidate ids
H4CA45170

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