Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Emergency Management; target: Biden, Harris · Source
4.7%
of statements criticize a policy, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans
4.7% of 1,054 statements criticize a policy (49 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 214th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Epps’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. 1.3% of Epps’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (average 8.9%). 23% of Epps’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 37%).
The measures on which Epps 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.
Policy criticism
4.7%
House Republicans average 15% · ranks 214th of 221
Bipartisanship
1.3%
House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 213th of 221
Attendance
100%
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 6th of 221 · 363 roll calls
Credit claiming
23%
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 192nd of 221
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.59
House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 187th of 221
CSIP ideology
+1.01
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Epps, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Epps is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Epps says
Epps stresses bipartisanship less than 95% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 1.3% of 1,054 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 213th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Epps’s 1,054 statements in the 119th Congress (1,054 posts on X) 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%
Epps
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion779 statements
74%
68%
67th of 221
Credit claiming241 statements
23%
37%
192nd of 221
Policy criticism49 statements
5%
15%
214th of 221
Bipartisanship14 statements
1%
9%
213th of 221
Personal attacks3 statements
0%
2%
179th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Epps | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 74% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 23% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 5% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
1,054
statements classified
1,054 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,054 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Epps; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Epps does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Epps used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, 22% of the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
- “radical”5
- “communist”1
- “extreme”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats2
- Democrat Socialists1
- gender ideology1
- Left1
- policies1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 64 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 90.6% | 0.0% | 26.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 167 | 0.6% | 5.4% | 73.7% | 0.6% | 27.5% | 0.6% |
| Mar ’26 | 151 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 78.1% | 4.0% | 15.9% | 1.3% |
| Apr ’26 | 115 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 67.8% | 0.9% | 14.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 107 | 0.0% | 8.4% | 76.6% | 1.9% | 25.2% | 0.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 116 | 0.0% | 4.3% | 75.9% | 1.7% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 119 | 0.0% | 5.0% | 70.6% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 0.8% |
| Aug ’26 | 94 | 1.1% | 2.1% | 58.5% | 1.1% | 16.0% | 1.1% |
| Sep ’26 | 56 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 78.6% | 1.8% | 25.0% | 1.8% |
| Oct ’26 | 50 | 2.0% | 2.0% | 86.0% | 0.0% | 16.0% | 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 Epps’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 16, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Commerce; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 9, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Law; extreme label “radical” aimed at Left · 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 · Immigration · Emergency Management · target: Biden, HarrisSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · target: BidenSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: DemocratsSource
All 1,054 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,054 posts on X.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Epps talks about most: 39% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 187th 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 Epps talks about. The bills Epps sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Epps talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%43%
Epps
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security302 statements
39%
24%
Economics and Public Finance104 statements
13%
19%
Crime and Law Enforcement99 statements
13%
12%
Government Operations and Politics93 statements
12%
19%
Science, Technology, Communications86 statements
11%
7%
Show the data
| Row | Epps | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 39% | 24% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 13% | 19% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 13% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 12% | 19% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 11% | 7% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Epps’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 43%. 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 | 39% | 24% | 19% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 13% | 19% | 1% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 13% | 12% | 18% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 12% | 19% | 10% | 12% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 11% | 7% | 5% | 3% |
0.59
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 187th of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Epps legislates on exactly the areas Epps 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 Epps sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Epps sits at +1.01 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 54% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.97 to +1.05, which understates the uncertainty; from 833 donors and 363 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”.
+1.01
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.97 to +1.05. From 833 donors and 363 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Epps, 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 Epps’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 Epps 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 Epps |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 53% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 77% |
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 Epps 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 Epps.
Money
Epps raised $2.6M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 23% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 71% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.
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.
$2.6M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 837 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)54 squares$1.4M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)16 squares$424.8K
- PACs and other committees26 squares$690.8K
- Party committees$10.3K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)4 squares$89.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.4M | 54.1% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $424.8K | 16.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $690.8K | 26.1% |
| Party committees | $10.3K | 0.4% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $89.9K | 3.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2026 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | $2.6M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 71% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$1.1M
- Florida$93.6K
- California$64.3K
- Texas$55.5K
- Virginia$55.4K
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%
Epps
Median
2026
23%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Epps | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 23% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $1.1M |
| Florida | $93.6K |
| California | $64.3K |
| Texas | $55.5K |
| Virginia | $55.4K |
| North Carolina | $22.3K |
| Indiana | $19.0K |
| Massachusetts | $15.0K |
| District of Columbia | $11.5K |
| Pennsylvania | $11.0K |
| Ohio | $10.5K |
| New York | $10.2K |
| South Carolina | $9,642 |
| Alabama | $9,108 |
| Wyoming | $6,486 |
| Colorado | $5,663 |
| Connecticut | $4,523 |
| Georgia | $4,392 |
| Kentucky | $4,250 |
| Arizona | $3,971 |
| Utah | $3,778 |
| Maryland | $3,704 |
| Arkansas | $3,688 |
| Illinois | $3,362 |
| Washington | $3,207 |
| Michigan | $3,133 |
| New Jersey | $3,077 |
| New Mexico | $2,382 |
| Minnesota | $2,237 |
| Oregon | $1,972 |
| Oklahoma | $1,587 |
| Maine | $1,071 |
| Missouri | $897 |
| Kansas | $862 |
| Delaware | $855 |
| Louisiana | $790 |
| Hawaii | $760 |
| Idaho | $747 |
| Nevada | $724 |
| Wisconsin | $557 |
| South Dakota | $300 |
| Alaska | $250 |
| New Hampshire | $237 |
| Iowa | $194 |
| Vermont | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
837
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
71%
from Tennessee
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 Tennessee. 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 −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.8% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.6% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 1.1% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 4.8% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 38% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 54% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.5% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Epps’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Epps’s own score is +1.01.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$395.8K 308 donors
- HOMEMAKER$145.8K 18 donors
- OWNER$112.7K 31 donors
- EXECUTIVE$55.2K 14 donors
- CEO$53.3K 29 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ELECTING MAJORITY MAKING EFFECTIVE REPUBLICANS PAC$15.0K
- SENATE EAGLE PAC$15.0K
- TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$14.0K
- AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$13.5K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- STATE OF TENNESSEE$25.2K 12 donors
- RYE ENGINEERING PLC$22.0K 3 donors
- STONES RIVER GROUP$9,250 3 donors
- CORECIVIC$9,000 4 donors
- STATE OF TN$5,225 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Epps voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.2% of party-line votes and missed none of 363 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Epps voted against the majority of House Republicans 2 times.
363 roll calls Epps 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 Epps voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
2
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 99.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 38th of 221. 363 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Epps, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Epps
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.3%
6th of 221
Party unity
99.2%
97.1%
38th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Epps | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 99.2% | 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 Epps most often
- Tony GonzalesR131 shared votes100%
- Jefferson ShreveR357 shared votes99%
- Michael GuestR354 shared votes99%
- Ashley HinsonR354 shared votes99%
- Andy BarrR335 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Epps least often
- Sheila Cherfilus-MccormickD169 shared votes18%
- Dan GoldmanD307 shared votes20%
- Frederica WilsonD224 shared votes21%
- Jan SchakowskyD325 shared votes21%
- Lizzie FletcherD354 shared votes21%
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
Epps sponsored 9 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 101 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 127th of 216).
The bills Epps 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 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 101 | 101 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Epps sponsored, ochre blocks bills Epps cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
11%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 127th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Epps, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Mike Haridopolos10
- John Rose10
- Pat Harrigan9
- Andrew Ogles IV8
- Addison McDowell8
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 Epps’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. 10808 | STORK Act | Sponsor | Oct 13, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 13, 2026 |
| H.R. 10737 | To amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to promote transparency in science, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Oct 5, 2026 |
| H.R. 10470 | SHIELD for Victims Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1552 | Supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as "Gold Star Families Remembrance Week". | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 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 |
| H.R. 10395 | Critical Materials Future Act of 2025 | Cosponsor | Sep 15, 2026 | In committee | Energy | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 15, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 64 times in 90 days. Epps’s official site had 30 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Epps posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Epps’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 Epps posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 30
pages crawled
64changes in 90 days
- 9
pages crawled
6changes 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
Images Epps posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of adults pose together for a photo in a meeting room. An exit sign and other text are visible.View post 
A group of older adults sit around tables eating and talking in a community room, while a man stands beside them. The room has ceiling fans, a chandelier, curtains, wall decorations, and a small flag. Some text is visible on objects and decorations.View post 
A gathering in a community hall, with people seated around tables and a group standing at the front while a man speaks into a microphone. Green, white, and gold balloons decorate the room. Some signs and other text are visible.View post 
Two women smile at an indoor gathering while holding large speech-bubble signs. Other people, tables, chairs, windows with green curtains, and a vending machine are visible in the room. The signs contain text.View post 
Five adults pose together for a photo at an indoor event, with green, gold, and white balloons behind them and two flags in the background. Some clothing and a balloon contain text.View post
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
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 Epps 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
- V000139
- Bioguide
- V000139
- FEC candidate ids
- H6TN07161
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