Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Health · Source
12%
of itemized money from Wisconsin donors, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans
12% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Wisconsin. Ranks 207th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 4,718 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Wisconsin, ranked among House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. Orden raised $9.1M in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of House Republicans (median $2.2M). Orden missed 8.3% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 96.3%).
The measures on which Orden sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Wisconsin, 2026
12%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 207th of 216 House Republicans
Raised, 2026
$9.1M
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 11th of 220
Attendance
91.6%
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 199th of 221 · 674 roll calls
Small donations, 2026
37%
House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 37th of 220
Policy criticism
9.4%
House Republicans average 15% · ranks 178th of 221
CSIP ideology
+1.03
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Orden, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Orden is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Orden says
Orden criticizes policies less than 80% of House Republicans. Policy criticism in 9.4% of 702 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 178th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Orden’s 702 statements in the 119th Congress (616 posts on X, 74 press releases, 12 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Orden
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion464 statements
66%
68%
137th of 221
Credit claiming284 statements
40%
37%
87th of 221
Policy criticism66 statements
9%
15%
178th of 221
Bipartisanship40 statements
6%
9%
140th of 221
Personal attacks11 statements
2%
2%
90th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Orden | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 66% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 40% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 9% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 6% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
702
statements classified
616 posts on X, 74 press releases, 12 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 616 |
| press releases | 74 |
| newsletters | 12 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Orden; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Orden does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Orden used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, below the peer average. 15 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
- “radical”10
- “far left”2
- “extreme”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats4
- Muslim mullahs2
- individuals1
- Iranian regime1
- left1
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 19.1% | 81.0% | 14.3% | 61.9% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 21 | 14.3% | 19.1% | 81.0% | 19.1% | 61.9% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 20 | 5.0% | 10.0% | 70.0% | 5.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 11.8% | 58.8% | 5.9% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 59.3% | 3.7% | 44.4% | 3.7% |
| Jun ’25 | 30 | 3.3% | 10.0% | 80.0% | 6.7% | 26.7% | 10.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 26 | 11.5% | 11.5% | 80.8% | 7.7% | 69.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 90.0% | 0.0% | 80.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 13.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 39 | 2.6% | 38.5% | 66.7% | 10.3% | 38.5% | 2.6% |
| Nov ’25 | 22 | 4.5% | 9.1% | 31.8% | 0.0% | 22.7% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 64.0% | 16.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 47 | 0.0% | 6.4% | 59.6% | 0.0% | 29.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 75 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 54.7% | 2.7% | 45.3% | 2.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 68 | 0.0% | 8.8% | 64.7% | 10.3% | 45.6% | 4.4% |
| Apr ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 61.9% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 7.5% | 65.0% | 5.0% | 35.0% | 2.5% |
| Jun ’26 | 62 | 1.6% | 4.8% | 62.9% | 8.1% | 37.1% | 3.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 66.7% | 2.4% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 34 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 82.3% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 85.2% | 3.7% | 40.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 92.3% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 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 Orden’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 17, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Energy; Transportation and Public Works; Housing and Community Development · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; International Affairs; extreme label “radical” aimed at Iranian regime · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · target: Tony EversSource
Press releases
Rep. Van Orden Statement on Government Reopening WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Derrick Van Orden (WI-03) released the following statement after the federal government reopened: “After more than 40 days of chaos caused by the Democrats’ unnecessary, harmful, and utterly foolish shutdown, the federal government is finally reopening. From day one, House Republicans did our job. We passed clean, responsible funding bill…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Agriculture and Food · Transportation and Public Works · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · target: Chuck SchumerSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TammySource
Press releases
Van Orden Applauds Committee Passage of FY26 National Defense Authorization Act WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Navy SEAL veteran Congressman Derrick Van Orden (WI-03) released the following statement after voting to pass the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) out of the House Armed Services Committee: “Under the Biden administration, the world was a much more dangerous place due to shee…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · International Affairs · Health · Crime and Law Enforcement · Science, Technology, Communications · target: Joe BidenSource
Press releases
Van Orden Votes for Tax Breaks for Families, Small Business Growth, SNAP & Medicaid Protection WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Derrick Van Orden (WI-03) released the following statement after voting to pass H.R.1 – the One, Big, Beautiful Bill: “This bill is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Americans – our seniors, veterans, families, farmers, manufacturers, and most vulnerable populations. “My Democrat col…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Taxation · Commerce · Health · Agriculture and Food · Immigration · target: Democrat colleaguesSource
All 702 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: 616 posts on X, 74 press releases, 12 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Orden talks about most: 26% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 66th of 221).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Orden talks about. The bills Orden sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Orden talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Orden
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security121 statements
26%
24%
Agriculture and Food112 statements
24%
9%
Health93 statements
20%
15%
Economics and Public Finance50 statements
11%
19%
Government Operations and Politics49 statements
11%
19%
Show the data
| Row | Orden | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 26% | 24% |
| Agriculture and Food | 24% | 9% |
| Health | 20% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 19% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 19% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Orden’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 26% | 24% | 29% | 8% |
| Agriculture and Food | 24% | 9% | 8% | 3% |
| Health | 20% | 15% | 9% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 19% | 1% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 19% | 10% | 12% |
0.68
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 66th of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Orden legislates on exactly the areas Orden 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 Orden sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Orden sits at +1.03 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 58% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.02 to +1.05, which understates the uncertainty; from 11,227 donors and 1,814 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 +1.02 to +1.05. From 11,227 donors and 1,814 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Orden, 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 Orden’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 Orden sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Orden |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 57% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 79% |
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 Orden 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 Orden.
Money
Orden raised $9.1M in the 2026 cycle, 4.2 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 37% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 12% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.
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.
$9.1M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 4,718 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$3.3M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)22 squares$2.0M
- PACs and other committees14 squares$1.3M
- Party committees$21.8K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)28 squares$2.5M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $3.3M | 36.4% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $2.0M | 21.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $1.3M | 13.8% |
| Party committees | $21.8K | 0.2% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $2.5M | 27.8% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $2.0M |
| 2022 cycle | $6.4M |
| 2024 cycle | $7.7M |
| 2026 cycle | $9.1M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 12% came from Wisconsin.
- Texas$402.3K
- Wisconsin$365.3K
- Florida$303.1K
- California$280.9K
- Virginia$149.5K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Orden
Median
2026
37%
9%
2024
44%
9%
2022
39%
9%
2020
25%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Orden | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 37% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 44% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 39% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 25% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Texas | $402.3K |
| Wisconsin | $365.3K |
| Florida | $303.1K |
| California | $280.9K |
| Virginia | $149.5K |
| Georgia | $109.7K |
| Illinois | $98.7K |
| Arizona | $95.5K |
| New York | $88.4K |
| Pennsylvania | $80.9K |
| Massachusetts | $79.3K |
| Michigan | $78.8K |
| North Carolina | $72.4K |
| Ohio | $62.3K |
| Minnesota | $58.3K |
| Indiana | $56.2K |
| Tennessee | $47.5K |
| Arkansas | $41.8K |
| Alabama | $41.5K |
| Kansas | $40.0K |
| Washington | $39.9K |
| South Carolina | $39.6K |
| New Jersey | $38.8K |
| Colorado | $38.8K |
| Maryland | $32.2K |
| Louisiana | $31.9K |
| Missouri | $29.7K |
| Mississippi | $29.2K |
| Utah | $28.9K |
| Idaho | $27.4K |
| Connecticut | $25.6K |
| New Mexico | $23.3K |
| Nevada | $22.2K |
| Oregon | $20.9K |
| Oklahoma | $18.3K |
| Kentucky | $15.5K |
| District of Columbia | $12.1K |
| Montana | $12.0K |
| Wyoming | $11.3K |
| Iowa | $8,721 |
| Alaska | $7,337 |
| Hawaii | $6,938 |
| Maine | $6,001 |
| South Dakota | $4,940 |
| West Virginia | $4,914 |
| Nebraska | $4,266 |
| North Dakota | $2,454 |
| New Hampshire | $2,129 |
| Delaware | $1,705 |
| Vermont | $1,569 |
| Rhode Island | $773 |
4,718
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
12%
from Wisconsin
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 Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 0% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.0% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.0% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.8% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.6% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 1.4% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 3.3% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 21% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 72% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 1.0% |
| CSIP +1.50 to +1.75 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Orden’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Orden’s own score is +1.03.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$2.4M 3,861 donors
- CEO$106.3K 26 donors
- PHYSICIAN$34.3K 31 donors
- PRESIDENT$32.1K 17 donors
- ENGINEER$25.8K 16 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- 31 DAYS PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (CRNA-PAC)$10.0K
- AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
- AMERICAN REVIVAL PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN SECURITY PAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- WALMART$1,346 4 donors
- USPS$474 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Orden voted with the majority of House Republicans on 96.6% of party-line votes and missed 8.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Orden voted against the majority of House Republicans 23 times.
674 roll calls Orden could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Orden voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
23
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 96.6%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 176th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Orden, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Orden
Peers
Rank
Attendance
91.6%
96.3%
199th of 221
Party unity
96.6%
97.1%
176th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Orden | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 91.6% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 96.6% | 97.1% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Orden most often
- Mike JohnsonR480 shared votes98%
- Doug LamalfaR319 shared votes97%
- Robert LattaR617 shared votes97%
- Gregory MurphyR553 shared votes97%
- James BairdR582 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Orden least often
- Adelita GrijalvaD351 shared votes24%
- Rashida TlaibD606 shared votes24%
- Delia RamirezD589 shared votes24%
- Gregorio CasarD544 shared votes25%
- Frederica WilsonD450 shared votes25%
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
Legislation
Orden sponsored 30 bills in the 119th Congress; 2 became law. Cosponsored 414 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 103rd of 216).
The bills Orden 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 30 | 30 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 414 | 414 | 35 | 3 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Orden sponsored, ochre blocks bills Orden cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
13%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 103rd of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Orden, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Tony Wied32
- Michael Lawler27
- Eugene Vindman27
- Claudia Tenney26
- Donald Davis24
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 Orden’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10740 | To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026 |
| H.R. 10556 | VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026 |
| H.R. 10478 | Aid and Attendance Assistance for Veterans Act | Cosponsor | Sep 17, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 17, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1564 | Recognizing September 17, 2026, as National Teach Ag Day. | Cosponsor | Sep 17, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food | Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 17, 2026 |
| H.R. 10443 | American Procurement Improvement Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 16, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 45 times in 90 days. Orden’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Orden posted on Oct 17, 2026.
The lab crawls Orden’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 Orden posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 25
pages crawled
45changes in 90 days
- 31
pages crawled
96changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- XRepVanOrden
- FacebookRepVanOrden
- InstagramRepVanOrden
Images Orden posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Seven adults pose in a hallway for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, with several holding scissors near a red ribbon. Posters and signs are visible in the background, and there is text in the image.View post 
A large group of people stand on a stage behind an oversized ceremonial check, with a projected event announcement and organization logos on the screen behind them. Red curtains frame the stage. Text appears throughout the image.View post 
Three men stand around a workshop table as one explains equipment to the other two. The table holds mechanical and pneumatic training apparatus, a laptop, and a plastic parts container. Text is visible on a label and in the background.View post 
Several people stand in a large warehouse aisle surrounded by tall storage racks and stacked boxes. In the foreground, a person wears a bright yellow-green shirt with a large logo on the back, while another person in a plaid shirt and cap looks at a handheld device. Other people are visible nearby. There is text on the shirt and on some boxes.View post 
Several people are talking inside a large warehouse, with tall shelves full of boxes and goods in the background. Some white wrapped materials lie on the floor, and there are small signs with text on the shelves and clothing.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.
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 Orden is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- V000135
- Bioguide
- V000135
- FEC candidate ids
- H0WI03175
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