of statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans
10% of 1,942 statements criticize a policy (202 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 46th of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Young’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches 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 Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
0
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 0.2% of Young’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (average 2.1%). 2.1% of Young’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (median 17%).
The measures on which Young sits furthest from the middle of Senate 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
10%
Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 46th of 52
Personal attacks
0.2%
Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 45th of 52
Small donations, 2026
2.1%
Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 44th of 51
Attendance
99.1%
Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 10th of 53 · 915 roll calls
Extreme labels
0.6%
Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 42nd of 52
CSIP ideology
+0.77
More liberal than 75% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Young, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Young is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Young attacks opponents personally less than 84% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 1,942 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 45th of 52.
An AI model reads each of Young’s 1,942 statements in the 119th Congress (1,580 posts on X, 237 press releases, 84 newsletters, 41 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
Young
Senate Republicans, average of 52
0%20%40%60%80%
Young
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,356 statements
70%
70%
28th of 52
Credit claiming797 statements
41%
36%
15th of 52
Bipartisanship282 statements
15%
13%
17th of 52
Policy criticism202 statements
10%
17%
46th of 52
Personal attacks4 statements
0%
2%
45th of 52
+ Show the data
Young's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
Row
Young
Peers
Policy discussion
70%
70%
Credit claiming
41%
36%
Bipartisanship
15%
13%
Policy criticism
10%
17%
Personal attacks
0%
2%
1,942
statements classified
1,580 posts on X, 237 press releases, 84 newsletters, 41 Congressional Record speeches.
posts on X
press releases
newsletters
Congressional Record speeches
+ Show the data
Young's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
1,580
press releases
237
newsletters
84
Congressional Record speeches
41
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is Young; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Young does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Young used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 20% of the peer average. 11 statements, most often aimed at abortion agenda; peers 2.9%.
“radical”6
“communist”5
“extreme”4
“woke”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
abortion agenda1
anti-business policies1
BEAD requirements1
climate propaganda1
Democrat administrations1
+ − 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
Monthly rates for Young, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
96
2.1%
22.9%
68.8%
20.8%
42.7%
1.0%
Feb ’25
91
1.1%
15.4%
85.7%
35.2%
58.2%
0.0%
Mar ’25
70
0.0%
20.0%
81.4%
20.0%
40.0%
4.3%
Apr ’25
99
0.0%
14.1%
74.8%
23.2%
43.4%
2.0%
May ’25
90
0.0%
2.2%
53.3%
8.9%
26.7%
1.1%
Jun ’25
86
0.0%
11.6%
60.5%
7.0%
16.3%
0.0%
Jul ’25
68
0.0%
14.7%
80.9%
11.8%
39.7%
0.0%
Aug ’25
44
0.0%
4.5%
68.2%
9.1%
38.6%
0.0%
Sep ’25
85
0.0%
7.1%
60.0%
14.1%
35.3%
0.0%
Oct ’25
104
0.0%
16.4%
68.3%
19.2%
40.4%
1.0%
Nov ’25
68
0.0%
8.8%
58.8%
5.9%
29.4%
0.0%
Dec ’25
81
0.0%
3.7%
64.2%
9.9%
32.1%
0.0%
Jan ’26
75
0.0%
9.3%
70.7%
10.7%
36.0%
0.0%
Feb ’26
130
0.0%
3.9%
43.9%
10.0%
68.5%
0.0%
Mar ’26
105
0.9%
10.5%
54.3%
18.1%
57.1%
1.9%
Apr ’26
107
0.0%
5.6%
82.2%
13.1%
52.3%
0.0%
May ’26
88
0.0%
12.5%
61.4%
10.2%
33.0%
0.0%
Jun ’26
97
0.0%
17.5%
74.2%
26.8%
41.2%
0.0%
Jul ’26
101
0.0%
5.0%
78.2%
10.9%
45.5%
1.0%
Aug ’26
86
0.0%
8.1%
86.1%
8.1%
26.7%
0.0%
Sep ’26
114
0.0%
9.7%
86.8%
13.2%
35.1%
0.0%
Oct ’26
57
0.0%
3.5%
86.0%
1.8%
38.6%
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 Young’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
Designating Camp Atterbury and Muscatatuck as Premier Test Ranges
[Image]
Designating Camp Atterbury and Muscatatuck as Premier Test Ranges
[Image]
I joined U.S. Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and members of the Indiana congressional delegation in sending a letter to Acting Secretary of the Army Ada…
Oct 9, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Science, Technology, Communications; Agriculture and Food; Foreign Trade and International Finance
Personal attacks
Young Opposes Pro-Abortion United Nations Nominee
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.) joined a bicameral letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the United States to veto the nomination of Dr. Michelle Bachelet of Chile to be the next United Nations Secretary General (UNSG). Bachel…
Mar 31, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; International Affairs; extreme label “extreme, radical, communist” aimed at abortion agenda; target: Michelle Bachelet · Source
Extreme label
Young Essay in Coolidge Review: The Outsider Who Took on FDR
WASHINGTON — The following essay by U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.) was published by the Coolidge Review on July 31, 2026.
THE OUTSIDER WHO TOOK ON FDR
By Todd Young
On the campaign trail in 1940, Wendell Willkie makes his case against Ro…
Jul 31, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; International Affairs; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Labor and Employment; extreme label “extreme, radical” aimed at anti-business policies, New Deal · 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.
·Press releases
Young Opposes Pro-Abortion United Nations Nominee
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.) joined a bicameral letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the United States to veto the nomination of Dr. Michelle Bachelet of Chile to be the next United Nations Secretary General (UNSG). Bachelet has a history of promoting abortion as a human right and overriding state sovereignty with intimidation and coercion…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · International Affairs · extreme label “extreme, radical, communist” aimed at abortion agenda · target: Michelle BacheletSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Joe BidenSource ↗
·Congressional Record
Mr. President, President Biden is spending his final days in office on a valedictory tour. Now, here is one accomplishment he won't mention: a crisis on our southern border which has spread chaos across our country, flooded our communities with fentanyl, and cost innocent American lives. Now, it is correct to call this one of President Biden's ``accomplishments.'' He intentionally reversed the Trump administration's…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource ↗
·Newsletters
Helping Hoosiers In 2024, our team helped more than 2,500 Hoosiers resolve cases involving federal agencies, resulting in more than $12.1 million being returned to Indiana taxpayers. When Hoosiers are improperly denied benefits they are owed or when the federal bureaucracy is moving too slowly, inquiries from members of Congress can kickstart the process. Our team is always committed to helping Hoosiers resolve issue…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Commerce · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Transportation and Public Works · Taxation · Science, Technology, Communications · Economics and Public Finance · Law
All 1,942 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: 1,580 posts on X, 237 press releases, 84 newsletters, 41 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Young talks about most: 36% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 14th of 52).
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 Young talks about. The bills Young sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Young talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
Young
Senate Republicans average
0%10%20%30%40%
Young
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security487 statements
36%
25%
Science, Technology, Communications303 statements
22%
9%
Commerce285 statements
21%
10%
Government Operations and Politics192 statements
14%
19%
Transportation and Public Works169 statements
12%
7%
+ Show the data
Policy areas Young talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
Row
Young
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security
36%
25%
Science, Technology, Communications
22%
9%
Commerce
21%
10%
Government Operations and Politics
14%
19%
Transportation and Public Works
12%
7%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Young’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 40%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Statements
Bills
Senate Republicans
+ Show the data
Young's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
Senate Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
Senate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security
36%
25%
6%
8%
Science, Technology, Communications
22%
9%
14%
3%
Commerce
21%
10%
7%
3%
Government Operations and Politics
14%
19%
7%
11%
Transportation and Public Works
12%
7%
6%
3%
0.68
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 14th of 52.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Young legislates on exactly the areas Young 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 Young sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Young sits at +0.77 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 75% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.76 to +0.79, which understates the uncertainty; from 7,509 donors and 3,817 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”.
+0.77
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.76 to +0.79. From 7,509 donors and 3,817 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Young, 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 Young’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 Young sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
+ Show the data
Young's CSIP score of +0.77 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Young
Senate Republicans
51
+1.0
24%
All Senate
98
+0.4
60%
+ − 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 Young 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 Young.
Young raised $5.1M in the 2026 cycle, above the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 2.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 19% of itemized individual money came from Indiana.
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.
$5.1M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 570 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
Itemized individual (over $200)26 squares$1.3M
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$29.2K
PACs and other committees15 squares$748.8K
Party committees$1,000
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)58 squares$3.0M
+ Show the data
Sources of Young's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$1.3M
26.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$29.2K
0.6%
PACs and other committees
$748.8K
14.7%
Party committees
$1,000
0.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$3.0M
58.4%
+ − 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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
Young's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
Item
Value
2020 cycle
$3.3M
2022 cycle
$10.9M
2024 cycle
$1.8M
2026 cycle
$5.1M
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 19% came from Indiana.
Indiana$299.2K
California$210.2K
New York$177.6K
Florida$102.6K
Texas$91.4K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
Young
Median
0%20%40%60%
Young
Median
2026
2%
17%
2024
13%
17%
2022
11%
17%
2020
33%
17%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
Row
Young
Median
2026 cycle
2%
17%
2024 cycle
13%
17%
2022 cycle
11%
17%
2020 cycle
33%
17%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$500$299.2Kno data
+ Show the data
Young's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
Indiana
$299.2K
California
$210.2K
New York
$177.6K
Florida
$102.6K
Texas
$91.4K
Massachusetts
$86.2K
Virginia
$72.4K
Arizona
$59.0K
District of Columbia
$47.6K
Illinois
$46.3K
Nevada
$30.5K
Maryland
$29.6K
Ohio
$29.0K
Georgia
$26.7K
Colorado
$25.9K
Connecticut
$23.8K
Kentucky
$19.0K
Alabama
$18.6K
New Jersey
$17.5K
North Carolina
$17.1K
Washington
$15.0K
Tennessee
$14.5K
Pennsylvania
$13.0K
New Hampshire
$12.0K
South Dakota
$11.8K
Missouri
$11.8K
North Dakota
$11.1K
Alaska
$11.0K
Utah
$9,000
Michigan
$8,015
Louisiana
$5,000
Wisconsin
$4,500
Minnesota
$1,600
Rhode Island
$1,500
Iowa
$1,030
Kansas
$1,000
Wyoming
$750
Maine
$500
Vermont
No data
Idaho
No data
Montana
No data
Oregon
No data
Nebraska
No data
West Virginia
No data
Delaware
No data
New Mexico
No data
Arkansas
No data
South Carolina
No data
Oklahoma
No data
Mississippi
No data
Hawaii
No data
570
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
19%
from Indiana
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 Indiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of Young's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.50: 5.1% between −0.25 and 0.00, 8.7% between 0.00 and +0.25, 12% between +0.25 and +0.50, 15% between +0.50 and +0.75, 48% between +0.75 and +1.00.
Item
Value
CSIP −1.25 to −1.00
0.0%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75
3.4%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50
2.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
3.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
5.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
8.7%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
12%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
15%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
48%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
1.5%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.50
0%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Young’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Young’s own score is +0.77.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
CEO$236.8K 53 donors
RETIRED$227.3K 110 donors
PRESIDENT$77.0K 15 donors
PARTNER$55.8K 20 donors
EXECUTIVE$54.1K 14 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$18.6K
ALL HANDS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
AM GENERAL LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AM GENERAL PAC)$10.0K
BURNS AND MCDONNELL INC. PAC$10.0K
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER ORGANIZATIONS (NAPEO PAC)$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
ALLEN CONTROL SYSTEMS$16.0K 5 donors
BLACKROCK$16.0K 9 donors
INDIANA UNIVERSITY$9,700 3 donors
BROWNSTEIN$8,500 7 donors
TIBER CREEK GROUP$7,000 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Young voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.9% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Young voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 14 times.
915 roll calls Young could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Young voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
14
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.5%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 30th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Young, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Young
Senate Republicans, average of 53
80%90%100%
Young
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.1%
97.1%
10th of 53
Party unity
99.5%
98.4%
30th of 53
+ Show the data
Young's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
Row
Young
Peers
Attendance
99.1%
97.1%
Party unity
99.5%
98.4%
+ − 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
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
Yea
With majority
Bill Passed
D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
Nay
With majority
Concurrent Resolution Rejected
D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
Yea
With majority
Bill Passed
D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
Yea
With majority
Resolution Agreed to
D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay
close vote
+ − 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 Young most often
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.
Young sponsored 65 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 251 others. 18% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 28th of 51).
The bills Young 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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Young sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
65
65
10
0
0
Cosponsored
251
246
57
3
3
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Young sponsored, ochre blocks bills Young cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
18%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 28th of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Young, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Democrat
Republican
Marsha Blackburn49
Ted Budd35
Jim Banks32
Christopher Coons32
James Risch31
+ − 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 Young’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
A resolution expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in order to educate communities across the United States about sickle cell disease and the need for research, early detection methods, effective treatments, and preventative care programs w
Cosponsor
Sep 30, 2026
Passed one chamber
Health
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5270) Sep 30, 2026
A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.
Cosponsor
Sep 28, 2026
Passed one chamber
Government Operations and Politics
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
A site that changed 29 times in 90 days. Young’s official site had 20 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Young posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Young’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 Young posts with a vision model.
“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.
A red-toned commemorative poster with large centered lettering and a date. At the bottom, uniformed soldiers walk across an airfield in front of two large military transport aircraft.View post ↗
02
A screenshot of an Indianapolis Business Journal article about U.S. Senator Todd Young and Great Lakes states leading drone development. The article includes a portrait of Young and several paragraphs of text.View post ↗
03
A group of people gathers outdoors beside a brown road sign on a sunny day. One person holds up a phone, and a blue canopy, trees, grass, and a truck are visible in the background. The sign and truck contain text.View post ↗
04
Several men stand outdoors beside a large brown memorial street sign on temporary supports. The sign is centered in the foreground, with grass, trees, and a clear blue sky behind it. Text is visible on the sign.View post ↗
05
A group of people pose outdoors beside a large brown memorial street sign on a sunny day. The sign has 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.
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 Young is most unusual among Senate 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 …”).
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.
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
