Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Virginia’s 7th district

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

Bioguide V000138FEC H4VA07234

Portrait of Eugene Vindman, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
57%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of House Democrats

57% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 9th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $16.3M 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. 18% of Vindman’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Virginia, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats. Vindman raised $16.3M in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of House Democrats (median $2.0M).

The measures on which Vindman 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

57%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 9th of 214

From Virginia, 2026

18%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 206th of 214 House Democrats

Raised, 2026

$16.3M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 5th of 214

Party unity

88%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 206th of 217 · 59 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Policy criticism

14%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 196th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.79

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 Vindman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Vindman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Vindman says

Vindman criticizes policies less than 90% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 14% of 2,408 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 196th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Vindman’s 2,408 statements in the 119th Congress (2,113 posts on X, 116 Congressional Record speeches, 103 press releases, 76 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%
Vindman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,946 statements
81%
73%
27th of 216
Credit claiming565 statements
23%
23%
88th of 216
Policy criticism329 statements
14%
28%
196th of 216
Bipartisanship248 statements
10%
10%
78th of 216
Personal attacks101 statements
4%
7%
137th of 216
Show the data
Vindman's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowVindmanPeers
Policy discussion81%73%
Credit claiming23%23%
Policy criticism14%28%
Bipartisanship10%10%
Personal attacks4%7%
2,408

statements classified

2,113 posts on X, 116 Congressional Record speeches, 103 press releases, 76 newsletters.

posts on X: 2,113 (87.7%)posts on X 2,113Congressional Record speeches: 116 (4.8%)press releases: 103 (4.3%)newsletters: 76 (3.2%)
Show the data
Vindman's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,113
Congressional Record speeches116
press releases103
newsletters76
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Vindman used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, below the peer average. 27 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”24
  2. “communist”2
  3. “MAGA”1
  4. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans12
  2. Washington Republicans5
  3. partisan efforts2
  4. decisions1
  5. House 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: 682025-02: 1122025-03: 1422025-04: 1342025-05: 1252025-06: 1192025-07: 1062025-08: 1032025-09: 1272025-10: 1472025-11: 1082025-12: 1012026-01: 1072026-02: 952026-03: 1242026-04: 1252026-05: 1092026-06: 1152026-07: 972026-08: 682026-09: 922026-10: 84peak 147 · Oct ’25Personal attackspeak 12.2% · Jan ’26 · latest 2.4%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.6% of 112Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.2% of 142Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.5% of 134Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.8% of 125Personal attacks, 2025-06: 5.9% of 119Personal attacks, 2025-07: 4.7% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-08: 3.9% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.4% of 127Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.7% of 147Personal attacks, 2025-11: 12.0% of 108Personal attacks, 2025-12: 5.9% of 101Personal attacks, 2026-01: 12.2% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-02: 6.3% of 95Personal attacks, 2026-03: 3.2% of 124Personal attacks, 2026-04: 6.4% of 125Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.8% of 109Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.9% of 115Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 97Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-09: 4.3% of 92Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.4% of 84Policy criticismpeak 27.4% · Mar ’26 · latest 20.2%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 4.4% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-02: 10.7% of 112Policy criticism, 2025-03: 13.4% of 142Policy criticism, 2025-04: 11.9% of 134Policy criticism, 2025-05: 7.2% of 125Policy criticism, 2025-06: 6.7% of 119Policy criticism, 2025-07: 19.8% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-08: 12.6% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-09: 7.1% of 127Policy criticism, 2025-10: 17.0% of 147Policy criticism, 2025-11: 8.3% of 108Policy criticism, 2025-12: 7.9% of 101Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.6% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-02: 7.4% of 95Policy criticism, 2026-03: 27.4% of 124Policy criticism, 2026-04: 12.8% of 125Policy criticism, 2026-05: 20.2% of 109Policy criticism, 2026-06: 18.3% of 115Policy criticism, 2026-07: 22.7% of 97Policy criticism, 2026-08: 20.6% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-09: 19.6% of 92Policy criticism, 2026-10: 20.2% of 84Policy discussionpeak 91.3% · Aug ’25 · latest 76.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 80.9% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-02: 79.5% of 112Policy discussion, 2025-03: 73.2% of 142Policy discussion, 2025-04: 67.9% of 134Policy discussion, 2025-05: 79.2% of 125Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.0% of 119Policy discussion, 2025-07: 80.2% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-08: 91.3% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-09: 85.8% of 127Policy discussion, 2025-10: 89.1% of 147Policy discussion, 2025-11: 78.7% of 108Policy discussion, 2025-12: 75.3% of 101Policy discussion, 2026-01: 82.2% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-02: 80.0% of 95Policy discussion, 2026-03: 87.1% of 124Policy discussion, 2026-04: 76.8% of 125Policy discussion, 2026-05: 86.2% of 109Policy discussion, 2026-06: 83.5% of 115Policy discussion, 2026-07: 82.5% of 97Policy discussion, 2026-08: 82.3% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.6% of 92Policy discussion, 2026-10: 76.2% of 84Bipartisanshippeak 22.8% · Dec ’25 · latest 3.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 8.8% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 12.5% of 112Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.3% of 142Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.2% of 134Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 3.2% of 125Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.9% of 119Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.4% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 15.5% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 18.9% of 127Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 18.4% of 147Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.6% of 108Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 22.8% of 101Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.6% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.3% of 95Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.1% of 124Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 6.4% of 125Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 8.3% of 109Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 18.3% of 115Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 15.5% of 97Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 14.7% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.5% of 92Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.6% of 84Credit claimingpeak 44.6% · Sep ’26 · latest 33.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 11.8% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-02: 19.6% of 112Credit claiming, 2025-03: 7.8% of 142Credit claiming, 2025-04: 17.2% of 134Credit claiming, 2025-05: 16.0% of 125Credit claiming, 2025-06: 20.2% of 119Credit claiming, 2025-07: 24.5% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-08: 19.4% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-09: 26.8% of 127Credit claiming, 2025-10: 14.3% of 147Credit claiming, 2025-11: 11.1% of 108Credit claiming, 2025-12: 34.6% of 101Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.8% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-02: 20.0% of 95Credit claiming, 2026-03: 26.6% of 124Credit claiming, 2026-04: 14.4% of 125Credit claiming, 2026-05: 33.0% of 109Credit claiming, 2026-06: 41.7% of 115Credit claiming, 2026-07: 42.3% of 97Credit claiming, 2026-08: 39.7% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-09: 44.6% of 92Credit claiming, 2026-10: 33.3% of 84Extreme labelspeak 5.6% · May ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.9% of 112Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 142Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.2% of 134Extreme labels, 2025-05: 5.6% of 125Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.7% of 119Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.8% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.9% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.1% of 127Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.4% of 147Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 108Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 95Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.8% of 124Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 125Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 109Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 115Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.0% of 97Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 92Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 84Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Vindman, 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 ’25682.9%4.4%80.9%8.8%11.8%0.0%
Feb ’251123.6%10.7%79.5%12.5%19.6%0.9%
Mar ’251424.2%13.4%73.2%6.3%7.8%0.0%
Apr ’251344.5%11.9%67.9%2.2%17.2%2.2%
May ’251250.8%7.2%79.2%3.2%16.0%5.6%
Jun ’251195.9%6.7%79.0%10.9%20.2%1.7%
Jul ’251064.7%19.8%80.2%9.4%24.5%3.8%
Aug ’251033.9%12.6%91.3%15.5%19.4%1.9%
Sep ’251272.4%7.1%85.8%18.9%26.8%3.1%
Oct ’251472.7%17.0%89.1%18.4%14.3%1.4%
Nov ’2510812.0%8.3%78.7%5.6%11.1%0.0%
Dec ’251015.9%7.9%75.3%22.8%34.6%0.0%
Jan ’2610712.2%5.6%82.2%5.6%16.8%0.0%
Feb ’26956.3%7.4%80.0%5.3%20.0%0.0%
Mar ’261243.2%27.4%87.1%8.1%26.6%0.8%
Apr ’261256.4%12.8%76.8%6.4%14.4%0.0%
May ’261091.8%20.2%86.2%8.3%33.0%0.0%
Jun ’261150.9%18.3%83.5%18.3%41.7%0.0%
Jul ’26970.0%22.7%82.5%15.5%42.3%1.0%
Aug ’26680.0%20.6%82.3%14.7%39.7%0.0%
Sep ’26924.3%19.6%82.6%6.5%44.6%0.0%
Oct ’26842.4%20.2%76.2%3.6%33.3%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 Vindman’s words

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

Personal attacks

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

Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; Economics and Public Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; target: Trump · Source

Policy criticism

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

Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source

Extreme label

Vindman Releases Statement After Voting Against Republican Political Games Washington, D.C. — Congressman Eugene Vindman (Va.-07) today released the following statement after House Republicans attached a poison pill amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). “The NDAA has long been…

Jul 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Republicans · 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 · Energy · Economics and Public Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource

  2. Press releases

    Vindman Supports Legislation to Prevent Illegal Domestic Troop Deployments and Voter Intimidation Ahead of Midterm Election WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Eugene Vindman (Va.-07) joined Congressman Pat Ryan (N.Y.-18) and four of their Democratic Veteran colleagues in the U.S. House in introducing legislation to prevent the president from weaponizing the military to interfere with elections. Specifically, the bill wo…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. Press releases

    Vindman Joins Democratic Veterans in Demanding Trump Hold Beijing Accountable for Providing Key Intelligence to Iran Washington, D.C. — Congressman Eugene Vindman (Va.-07) joined Congressman Pat Ryan (N.Y.-18) and 10 of their Democratic Veteran colleagues in calling on President Trump to publicly condemn China’s support for Iranian forces that are killing U.S. troops ahead of his White House meeting with President X…

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

  4. Press releases

    Vindman Joins Legislation to Demand That Trump and Hegseth Stop Hiding True Cost of Iran War Washington, D.C. — Congressman Eugene Vindman (Va.-07) joined Congressman Pat Ryan (N.Y.-18) and 10 of his Democratic Veteran colleagues as an original co-sponsor on the Honoring the Sacrifice of Troops in War Act. This legislation would honor the immense sacrifices made by US troops in the Iran War and stop Donald Trump and…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald Trump, Pete HegsethSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · target: TrumpSource

All 2,408 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: 2,113 posts on X, 116 Congressional Record speeches, 103 press releases, 76 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Vindman talks about most: 32% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 49th 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 Vindman talks about. The bills Vindman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Vindman talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Vindman
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security621 statements
32%
16%
Government Operations and Politics382 statements
20%
20%
Health374 statements
19%
26%
Economics and Public Finance306 statements
16%
20%
Education287 statements
15%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Vindman talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowVindmanPeers
Armed Forces and National Security32%16%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%
Health19%26%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%
Education15%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Vindman’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: 32% (House Democrats 16%)32%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 7%)14%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 20%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 11%)8%HealthHealth, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 26%)19%Health, legislates on: 15% (House Democrats 16%)15%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 20%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%EducationEducation, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 10%)15%Education, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 5%)3%
Show the data
Vindman'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 Security32%16%14%7%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%8%11%
Health19%26%15%16%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%1%1%
Education15%10%3%5%
0.71

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 49th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Vindman sits at −0.79 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 76% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.81 to −0.76, which understates the uncertainty; from 17,179 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”.

−0.79

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.81 to −0.76. From 17,179 donors and 669 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Vindman −0.8House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Vindman, 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 Vindman’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 Vindman sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Vindman −0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Vindman's CSIP score of −0.79 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Vindman
House Democrats217−1.076%
All House439+0.338%
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 Vindman 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 Vindman.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Vindman raised $16.3M in the 2026 cycle, 8.2 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 57% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 18% of itemized individual money came from Virginia.

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
$16.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 7,893 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): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.5M (39.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8.5M (52.0%)PACs and other committees: $999.6K (6.1%)PACs and other committees: $999.6K (6.1%)PACs and other committees: $999.6K (6.1%)PACs and other committees: $999.6K (6.1%)PACs and other committees: $999.6K (6.1%)PACs and other committees: $999.6K (6.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $365.9K (2.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $365.9K (2.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)40 squares$6.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)52 squares$8.5M
  • PACs and other committees6 squares$999.6K
  • Party committees$5,276
  • The candidate’s own money and loans$716
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$365.9K
Show the data
Sources of Vindman's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$6.5M39.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$8.5M52.0%
PACs and other committees$999.6K6.1%
Party committees$5,2760.0%
The candidate’s own money and loans$7160.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$365.9K2.2%
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: $18.1M$18.1M20242026 cycle: $16.3M$16.3M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Vindman's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$18.1M
2026 cycle$16.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 18% came from Virginia.

  1. Virginia$786.5K
  2. California$723.2K
  3. New York$499.3K
  4. Massachusetts$360.4K
  5. Florida$209.6K

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%
Vindman
Median
2026
57%
13%
2024
64%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowVindmanMedian
2026 cycle57%13%
2024 cycle64%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $9,510AKMaine: $16.7KMEVermont: $10.3KVTNew Hampshire: $18.1KNHWashington: $126.1KWAIdaho: $6,122IDMontana: $3,845MTNorth Dakota: $436NDMinnesota: $39.0KMNIllinois: $122.8KILWisconsin: $36.2KWIMichigan: $54.3KMINew York: $499.3KNYRhode Island: $15.5KRIMassachusetts: $360.4KMAOregon: $35.3KORNevada: $13.9KNVWyoming: $18.4KWYSouth Dakota: $1,772SDIowa: $26.2KIAIndiana: $19.6KINOhio: $35.9KOHPennsylvania: $74.9KPANew Jersey: $60.5KNJConnecticut: $120.4KCTCalifornia: $723.2KCAUtah: $18.6KUTColorado: $73.1KCONebraska: $4,077NEMissouri: $22.0KMOKentucky: $26.4KKYWest Virginia: $3,976WVVirginia: $786.5KVAMaryland: $188.5KMDDelaware: $9,307DEArizona: $55.0KAZNew Mexico: $21.7KNMKansas: $17.1KKSArkansas: $10.5KARTennessee: $64.1KTNNorth Carolina: $44.1KNCSouth Carolina: $20.8KSCDistrict of Columbia: $164.7KDCOklahoma: $11.3KOKLouisiana: $11.7KLAMississippi: $1,775MSAlabama: $14.3KALGeorgia: $79.3KGAHawaii: $8,189HITexas: $154.9KTXFlorida: $209.6KFL
Show the data
Vindman's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Virginia$786.5K
California$723.2K
New York$499.3K
Massachusetts$360.4K
Florida$209.6K
Maryland$188.5K
District of Columbia$164.7K
Texas$154.9K
Washington$126.1K
Illinois$122.8K
Connecticut$120.4K
Georgia$79.3K
Pennsylvania$74.9K
Colorado$73.1K
Tennessee$64.1K
New Jersey$60.5K
Arizona$55.0K
Michigan$54.3K
North Carolina$44.1K
Minnesota$39.0K
Wisconsin$36.2K
Ohio$35.9K
Oregon$35.3K
Kentucky$26.4K
Iowa$26.2K
Missouri$22.0K
New Mexico$21.7K
South Carolina$20.8K
Indiana$19.6K
Utah$18.6K
Wyoming$18.4K
New Hampshire$18.1K
Kansas$17.1K
Maine$16.7K
Rhode Island$15.5K
Alabama$14.3K
Nevada$13.9K
Louisiana$11.7K
Oklahoma$11.3K
Arkansas$10.5K
Vermont$10.3K
Alaska$9,510
Delaware$9,307
Hawaii$8,189
Idaho$6,122
Nebraska$4,077
West Virginia$3,976
Montana$3,845
Mississippi$1,775
South Dakota$1,772
North Dakota$436
7,893

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

18%

from Virginia

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.7%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 28%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 65%65%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 5.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Vindman's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.00: 28% between −1.25 and −1.00, 65% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.7%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0028%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7565%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.505.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.0%
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 Vindman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Vindman’s own score is −0.79.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$2.5M 5,503 donors
  2. RETIRED$236.4K 304 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$190.4K 183 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$65.8K 87 donors
  5. LAWYER$64.0K 69 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP$12.0K 7 donors
  2. BGR GROUP$9,500 8 donors
  3. ARNOLD & PORTER$8,825 4 donors
  4. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP$7,500 3 donors
  5. VARIOUS$7,425 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Vindman voted with the majority of House Democrats on 88% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Vindman voted against the majority of House Democrats 59 times.

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

59

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 88%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 206th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Vindman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.2%
96.9%
57th of 217
Party unity
88%
96.4%
206th of 217
Show the data
Vindman's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowVindmanPeers
Attendance99.2%96.9%
Party unity88%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
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 Vindman most often

  1. Josh RileyD657 shared votes96%
  2. Chris PappasD665 shared votes96%
  3. Maggie GoodlanderD664 shared votes96%
  4. Eric SorensenD664 shared votes96%
  5. Greg StantonD654 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Vindman least often

  1. Chip RoyR630 shared votes23%
  2. Keith SelfR656 shared votes25%
  3. Ralph NormanR594 shared votes25%
  4. Eric BurlisonR638 shared votes25%
  5. Josh BrecheenR639 shared votes26%
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

Vindman sponsored 80 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 1,065 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Vindman 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

Sponsored80 billsSponsored, Introduced: 8080Sponsored, In committee: 8080Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored1,065 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 1,0651,065Cosponsored, In committee: 1,0651,065Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7676Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 99Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Vindman sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored8080000
Cosponsored1,0651,0657696
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler119
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick116
  3. Josh Gottheimer101
  4. Donald Davis97
  5. Joe Neguse93
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 Vindman’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. 10904To direct the Federal Trade Commission to convene an interagency working group to track and report on market concentration and monopoly activity with respect to certain sectors of the economy, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10905To prohibit individualized pricing, dynamic pricing, and pricing based on facial recognition technology at large retail food stores and their online platforms, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10836To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit the live broadcast of military executions, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10837No Corrupt Lobbyists in Government ActSponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10838Honesty in Government Act of 2026SponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 101 times in 90 days. Vindman’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Vindman posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Vindman’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 Vindman 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 Vindman posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue-and-white informational flyer inviting Virginia’s Seventh District high school students to enter a congressional app challenge. It includes a deadline, prize information, contact details, and a congressional office name, with school-themed icons along the top.
    A blue-and-white informational flyer inviting Virginia’s Seventh District high school students to enter a congressional app challenge. It includes a deadline, prize information, contact details, and a congressional office name, with school-themed icons along the top.View post
  • A group of people converse at an indoor gathering. Three people in the foreground are dressed formally, and other guests stand in the background. Some text is visible on a display or sign.
    A group of people converse at an indoor gathering. Three people in the foreground are dressed formally, and other guests stand in the background. Some text is visible on a display or sign.View post
  • Three men pose indoors at an event, smiling and holding framed certificates or proclamations. Other attendees and banquet tables are visible in the background. The documents contain text.
    Three men pose indoors at an event, smiling and holding framed certificates or proclamations. Other attendees and banquet tables are visible in the background. The documents contain text.View post
  • Two men in suits stand at the front of a room. One speaks into a microphone behind a wooden lectern, with a large projection screen and speaker nearby. There is some text visible on papers, but it is not legible.
    Two men in suits stand at the front of a room. One speaks into a microphone behind a wooden lectern, with a large projection screen and speaker nearby. There is some text visible on papers, but it is not legible.View post
  • A blue political constituent testimonial graphic with a large light-blue quotation panel and a dark-blue footer. It features a quote from a constituent about resolving an issue with education grants, along with the constituent’s attribution and a representative’s name and district branding. Text is present throughout.
    A blue political constituent testimonial graphic with a large light-blue quotation panel and a dark-blue footer. It features a quote from a constituent about resolving an issue with education grants, along with the constituent’s attribution and a representative’s name and district branding. Text is present throughout.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 Vindman 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
V000138
Bioguide
V000138
FEC candidate ids
H4VA07234

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