Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, California’s 52nd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide V000130FEC H2CA50026

Portrait of Juan Vargas, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.2%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

0.2% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 213th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $836.1K raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Democrats. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 40% of Vargas’s statements criticize a policy, in the top tenth of House Democrats (average 28%). 83% of Vargas’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from California, in the top quarter of House Democrats.

The measures on which Vargas 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.

Small donations, 2026

0.2%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 213th of 214

Policy criticism

40%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 20th of 216

From California, 2026

83%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 28th of 214 House Democrats

Raised, 2026

$836.1K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 189th of 214

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.64

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 174th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.03

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Vargas says

Vargas criticizes policies more than 90% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 40% of 629 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 20th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Vargas’s 629 statements in the 119th Congress (487 posts on X, 65 press releases, 42 Congressional Record speeches, 35 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Vargas
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion492 statements
78%
73%
57th of 216
Policy criticism254 statements
40%
28%
20th of 216
Credit claiming106 statements
17%
23%
160th of 216
Bipartisanship46 statements
7%
10%
138th of 216
Personal attacks39 statements
6%
7%
97th of 216
Show the data
Vargas's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowVargasPeers
Policy discussion78%73%
Policy criticism40%28%
Credit claiming17%23%
Bipartisanship7%10%
Personal attacks6%7%
629

statements classified

487 posts on X, 65 press releases, 42 Congressional Record speeches, 35 newsletters.

posts on X: 487 (77.4%)posts on X 487press releases: 65 (10.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 42 (6.7%)newsletters: 35 (5.6%)
Show the data
Vargas's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X487
press releases65
Congressional Record speeches42
newsletters35
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Vargas used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, below the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at Supreme Court; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”4

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Supreme Court2
  2. Trump2
  3. immigration crackdown1
  4. Republicans1
What an extreme label is

Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.

Month by month

Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress

Statements2025-01: 472025-02: 562025-03: 332025-04: 522025-05: 392025-06: 342025-07: 342025-08: 192025-09: 342025-10: 242025-11: 202025-12: 212026-01: 322026-02: 252026-03: 162026-04: 312026-05: 222026-06: 282026-07: 132026-08: 132026-09: 212026-10: 15peak 56 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 16.1% · Feb ’25 · latest 13.3%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-02: 16.1% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-03: 15.2% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-05: 5.1% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-06: 5.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-08: 10.5% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-09: 5.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-01: 6.3% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.3% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-04: 6.5% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-05: 13.6% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-09: 9.5% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-10: 13.3% of 15Policy criticismpeak 62.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 31.9% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-02: 51.8% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-03: 51.5% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-04: 55.8% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-05: 43.6% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-06: 52.9% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-07: 58.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-08: 36.8% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-09: 44.1% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-10: 62.5% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-11: 35.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2025-12: 33.3% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-01: 12.5% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-02: 24.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-03: 56.3% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-04: 19.4% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-05: 36.4% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-06: 53.6% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-07: 30.8% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-08: 15.4% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-09: 19.1% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 15Policy discussionpeak 93.3% · Oct ’26 · latest 93.3%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.6% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-02: 82.1% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-03: 87.9% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-04: 84.6% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-05: 74.4% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-06: 76.5% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-07: 91.2% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-08: 84.2% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-09: 61.8% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-10: 79.2% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-11: 65.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2025-12: 81.0% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.4% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-02: 52.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-03: 68.8% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-04: 83.9% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-05: 54.5% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-06: 85.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.9% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-08: 92.3% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.2% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.3% of 15Bipartisanshippeak 26.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 8.5% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 26.8% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 0.0% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 2.6% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 12.5% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 4.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 6.3% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 12.5% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 6.5% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.3% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 7.7% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 15Credit claimingpeak 36.2% · Jan ’25 · latest 20.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 36.2% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-02: 25.0% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-03: 18.2% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-04: 13.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-05: 25.6% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-06: 8.8% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-07: 26.5% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-08: 10.5% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-09: 11.8% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-11: 10.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2025-12: 23.8% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-01: 3.1% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-02: 4.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-03: 0.0% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-04: 19.4% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-05: 13.6% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-06: 21.4% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-07: 15.4% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-08: 15.4% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-09: 14.3% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-10: 20.0% of 15Extreme labelspeak 10.7% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.8% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2025-12: 4.8% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.2% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-06: 10.7% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 15Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Vargas, 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 ’25474.3%31.9%76.6%8.5%36.2%2.1%
Feb ’255616.1%51.8%82.1%26.8%25.0%1.8%
Mar ’253315.2%51.5%87.9%9.1%18.2%0.0%
Apr ’25523.9%55.8%84.6%0.0%13.5%0.0%
May ’25395.1%43.6%74.4%2.6%25.6%0.0%
Jun ’25345.9%52.9%76.5%0.0%8.8%0.0%
Jul ’25342.9%58.8%91.2%8.8%26.5%0.0%
Aug ’251910.5%36.8%84.2%0.0%10.5%0.0%
Sep ’25345.9%44.1%61.8%8.8%11.8%2.9%
Oct ’25240.0%62.5%79.2%12.5%0.0%0.0%
Nov ’25200.0%35.0%65.0%5.0%10.0%0.0%
Dec ’25210.0%33.3%81.0%4.8%23.8%4.8%
Jan ’26326.3%12.5%84.4%6.3%3.1%0.0%
Feb ’26250.0%24.0%52.0%4.0%4.0%0.0%
Mar ’26166.3%56.3%68.8%12.5%0.0%0.0%
Apr ’26316.5%19.4%83.9%6.5%19.4%3.2%
May ’262213.6%36.4%54.5%0.0%13.6%0.0%
Jun ’26280.0%53.6%85.7%14.3%21.4%10.7%
Jul ’26130.0%30.8%76.9%7.7%15.4%0.0%
Aug ’26130.0%15.4%92.3%0.0%15.4%0.0%
Sep ’26219.5%19.1%76.2%0.0%14.3%0.0%
Oct ’261513.3%0.0%93.3%0.0%20.0%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 Vargas’s words

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

Credit claiming

Congressional Updates from Representative Juan Vargas [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1731451670236-Vargas.png] Pushing Back on ICE Enforcement Near Schools Since the beginning of the school year, there has been an increase in ICE enforcement near schools in San Diego. This raises seri…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Education; Housing and Community Development; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Environmental Protection; Water Resources Development

Policy criticism

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

Sep 28, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 25, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Supreme Court · 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 · Law · target: 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 SecuritySource

  3. 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 629 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: 487 posts on X, 65 press releases, 42 Congressional Record speeches, 35 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Vargas talks about most: 34% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 174th 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 Vargas talks about. The bills Vargas sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Vargas talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%38%
Vargas
Peers
Immigration168 statements
34%
11%
Health117 statements
24%
26%
Economics and Public Finance104 statements
21%
20%
Government Operations and Politics92 statements
19%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues63 statements
13%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas Vargas talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowVargasPeers
Immigration34%11%
Health24%26%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues13%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Vargas’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 38%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 34% (House Democrats 11%)34%Immigration, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 4%)8%HealthHealth, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 26%)24%Health, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 16%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 20%)19%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 13% (House Democrats 13%)13%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 5% (House Democrats 5%)5%
Show the data
Vargas's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Immigration34%11%8%4%
Health24%26%12%16%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%11%11%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues13%13%5%5%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 174th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Vargas sits at −1.03 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 56% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.06 to −1.01, which understates the uncertainty; from 588 donors and 7,428 roll calls.

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

−1.03

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.06 to −1.01. From 588 donors and 7,428 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Vargas, 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 Vargas’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 Vargas sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Vargas −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Vargas's CSIP score of −1.03 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Vargas
House Democrats217−1.043%
All House439+0.321%
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 Vargas 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 Vargas.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Vargas raised $836.1K in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 0.2% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 83% 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
$836.1K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 87 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): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $262.3K (31.4%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)PACs and other committees: $571.7K (68.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)31 squares$262.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$547
  • PACs and other committees69 squares$571.7K
Show the data
Sources of Vargas's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$262.3K31.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$5470.1%
PACs and other committees$571.7K68.5%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $799.7K$799.7K20202022 cycle: $942.9K$942.9K20222024 cycle: $790.6K$790.6K20242026 cycle: $836.1K$836.1K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Vargas's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$799.7K
2022 cycle$942.9K
2024 cycle$790.6K
2026 cycle$836.1K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 83% came from California.

  1. California$97.6K
  2. New York$7,000
  3. Colorado$5,300
  4. Pennsylvania$3,500
  5. Wisconsin$2,000

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%
Vargas
Median
2026
0%
13%
2024
1%
13%
2022
1%
13%
2020
1%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowVargasMedian
2026 cycle0%13%
2024 cycle1%13%
2022 cycle1%13%
2020 cycle1%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: $2,000WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $7,000NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $3,500PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $97.6KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $5,300CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $1,000VAMaryland: $500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $1,000DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Vargas's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$97.6K
New York$7,000
Colorado$5,300
Pennsylvania$3,500
Wisconsin$2,000
Virginia$1,000
District of Columbia$1,000
Maryland$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
87

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

83%

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 −1.25 to −1.00: 9.6%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 17%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 16%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 24%24%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 21%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 9.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.7%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Vargas's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +0.75: 9.6% between −1.25 and −1.00, 17% between −1.00 and −0.75, 16% between −0.75 and −0.50, 24% between −0.50 and −0.25, 21% between −0.25 and 0.00, 9.3% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.009.6%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7517%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5016%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2524%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0021%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.259.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.7%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Vargas’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Vargas’s own score is −1.03.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CEO$16.3K 4 donors
  2. RETIRED$11.0K 16 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$6,900 10 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$6,500 4 donors
  5. PRINCIPAL$6,250 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. DELOITTE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. FHL BANK SAN FRANCISCO$2,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Vargas voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.5% of party-line votes and missed 2.2% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Vargas voted against the majority of House Democrats 20 times.

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

20

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.5%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 108th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Vargas
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.7%
96.9%
126th of 217
Party unity
98.5%
96.4%
108th of 217
Show the data
Vargas's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowVargasPeers
Attendance97.7%96.9%
Party unity98.5%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
NayAgainst majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst 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 Vargas most often

  1. Diana DeGetteD647 shared votes98%
  2. Jared HuffmanD645 shared votes98%
  3. Dan GoldmanD578 shared votes98%
  4. Joe NeguseD658 shared votes98%
  5. Frank Pallone Jr.D655 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Vargas least often

  1. Chip RoyR621 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR583 shared votes17%
  3. Josh BrecheenR628 shared votes18%
  4. Andy BiggsR596 shared votes18%
  5. Keith SelfR647 shared votes19%
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

Vargas sponsored 14 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 411 others. 7.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 51st of 207).

The bills Vargas 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

Sponsored14 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1414Sponsored, In committee: 1414Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored411 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 411411Cosponsored, In committee: 411411Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1212Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Vargas sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1414100
Cosponsored4114111200
How to read the blocks

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

7.1%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 51st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton40
  2. Rashida Tlaib25
  3. André Carson21
  4. Nanette Barragán19
  5. Judy Chu19
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 Vargas’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.Res. 1635Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day".CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10794Improving Access to WIC ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 9, 2026
H.Con.Res. 123Recognizing the disparity in wages paid to Latinas and the impact of that disparity on women, families, the economy, and the United States.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 6, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 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

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 74 times in 90 days. Vargas’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Vargas posted on Oct 20, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    vargas.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    27

    pages crawled

    74

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.votevargas.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    4

    pages crawled

    5

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Vargas posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of eight people pose for a ribbon-cutting photo in front of large industrial tanks and pipes outdoors, with palm trees and a clear blue sky behind them. Some clothing and equipment have text or logos.
    A group of eight people pose for a ribbon-cutting photo in front of large industrial tanks and pipes outdoors, with palm trees and a clear blue sky behind them. Some clothing and equipment have text or logos.View post
  • A group of seven adults pose outdoors in front of industrial tanks and pipes. Two people hold a framed certificate. Palm trees and a clear blue sky are visible in the background. The certificate contains text.
    A group of seven adults pose outdoors in front of industrial tanks and pipes. Two people hold a framed certificate. Palm trees and a clear blue sky are visible in the background. The certificate contains text.View post
  • A group of adults stands in a library around a man speaking at a podium with microphones. Bookshelves and posters are visible in the background, and some people wear clothing with text or logos.
    A group of adults stands in a library around a man speaking at a podium with microphones. Bookshelves and posters are visible in the background, and some people wear clothing with text or logos.View post
  • A formal letter on U.S. Congress letterhead, dated September 2026, addressed to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The letter expresses opposition to immigration enforcement activity near schools and colleges in San Diego County and discusses its effects on students and families. Several blue, underlined source citations appear at the bottom. The page ends mid-sentence.
    A formal letter on U.S. Congress letterhead, dated September 2026, addressed to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The letter expresses opposition to immigration enforcement activity near schools and colleges in San Diego County and discusses its effects on students and families. Several blue, underlined source citations appear at the bottom. The page ends mid-sentence.View post
  • A page from a formal letter, with a short closing passage at the top and six blue handwritten signatures arranged in two columns above printed names and titles. There is text throughout the document.
    A page from a formal letter, with a short closing passage at the top and six blue handwritten signatures arranged in two columns above printed names and titles. There is text throughout the document.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 Vargas 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
V000130
Bioguide
V000130
FEC candidate ids
H2CA50026

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