Richard Blumenthal headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Born
February 13, 1946
Age 80
Phone
(202) 224-2823
Office
503 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Connecticut

Richard Blumenthal

Richard Blumenthal is an American politician and attorney serving as the senior United States senator from the state of Connecticut. A member of the Democratic Party, he has been a member of the Senate since 2011. Blumenthal previously served as U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, as a member of the Connecticut General Assembly, and as the 23rd Connecticut attorney general.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 851
Yes29%
No70%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Richard Blumenthal headshot
Richard Blumenthal
U.S. SenatorDemocratConnecticut
SoupScore
Richard's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 114 sponsored · 611 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

I’ll press for legislation— the Afghan Adjustment Act— to safeguard Afghan allies’ status here & give them a path toward more permanent security. America cannot count on future local aid abroad in hostile settings if we break such promises.
Veterans are right to be angry about Trump deporting Afghans back to face Taliban torture & death. They’re allies who helped & protected our troops & diplomats against the Taliban. Trump is breaking the promise America made in return. www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
Scorching sanctions on Russia are urgently necessary— now— before Putin’s anticipated summer offensive. He’s playing Trump, & America, stalling for time. My Russia Sanctions bill with Senator Graham has an overwhelming 82 Senate cosponsors. Let’s act. www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
I’ll continue my inquiry through the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I’ll continue to support the law firms that are standing up & speaking out against Trump’s brutish demagoguery.
Big law firms bending the knee to Trump is futile & foolish—a tragic betrayal of trust & integrity. He’s already talking about detestable causes he’ll champion with their pro bono service. Deservedly, they’re losing clients & colleagues. www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...
Hydrilla—an invasive, horrendously harmful plant—is plaguing the CT River & other waterways. It directly threatens both our state's wildlife & our boating, fishing, & recreational industries—hurting our environment & our economy. We need federal funding to combat its rapid spread.
Qatar’s $400 million plane gift, UAE’s $2 billion investment in his World Liberty Financial venture, other countries’ support for real estate deals—& more. All add to the meme coin corruption, funneling money into his pockets.
A President beholden to foreign interests is exactly what the Founders feared most when they barred any payment or benefit to any federal officer— it’s the Constitution’s emoluments clause. On the Senate floor Wednesday I asked for a vote. Republicans blocked it.
Americans deserve to know about Trump’s crypto currency buyers— because they’re a powerful potential threat to national security. Many are foreign investors, possibly with ties to China & other adversaries. Trump has put Presidential access & influence on the auction block.
I’ll continue my investigation, demanding facts about the biggest, most blatant, brazen corruption in our nation’s history— but don’t expect even a hint of investigative interest from federal law enforcement leaders, who are totally under Trump’s thumb.
These dedicated workers deserve decent compensation, pensions, & job security as they produce the best aircraft engines on the planet, vital to assuring that America has the strongest air force in the world.
After repeatedly rebuffing responsibility & lying, Boeing will now permanently escape accountability. Victims, families, & the flying public deserve better. They deserve justice, not this sham.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
851 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-04-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-32)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-04-07End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-39)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (5-94)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 26 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26NONOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-83)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 33 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33NONOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-82)
2025-04-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-04-03H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-42)
2025-04-02H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-02S.J. Res. 37 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Passed (51-48)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-03-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-42)
2025-03-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-03-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-03-27S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-03-26S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)

Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.

← PrevPage 14 / 18Next →