Trump obliterating the misconduct database is what’s anti-police because it strips law enforcement agencies of a vital tool that helps them avoid hiring officers with a disciplinary or misconduct history.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Jersey
Cory A. Booker
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes28%
No67%
Present1%
Not Voting5%
Party align95%
Cross-party3%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Cory A. Booker
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Jersey
SoupScore
Cory A.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 115 sponsored · 561 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The point is that police misconduct records are critical to ensuring departments don’t hire bad or dangerous cops. So much so, that the conservative Manhattan Institute recommends departments report this information and review it as part of any applicant’s background check.
The cop who shot and killed 14-year-old Tamir Rice in a park left another police department 2 years before the shooting. Supervisors were in the process of firing him because he had an “inability to perform basic functions as instructed” and was “emotionally unstable.”
Four of the five officers who beat Tyre Nichols to death had disciplinary histories or suspensions, including for domestic violence and covering up use of force during arrests.
Cops with histories of misconduct who never should have worked in law enforcement again included the officer who shot Sonya Massey in the face after she called for help. He had a history of drunk driving and had been discharged from the Army for serious misconduct.
Before this, there was no way to know if an applicant had a history of misconduct. That is why police were supportive – because hiring bad officers is bad for their communities.
Misconduct hurts the entire profession and costs cash-strapped departments and cities millions of dollars every year.
Police organizations helped draft the order and other reforms. They applauded it as a positive step for law enforcement. They joined Trump to celebrate the reforms at a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden.
In response, Trump issued an executive order that reflected best practices in policing to keep officers and communities safe and hold officers who violate people’s civil rights accountable.
Even the Heritage Foundation said, “it was welcome news in troubled times.”
Why would Trump get rid of the database he created? Because Trump will drastically scale back police accountability to appease right-wing TV and X commentators.
After George Floyd was killed in 2020, Trump—and the country—had a moment of reckoning. We couldn’t turn a blind eye anymore.
Trump and Elon Musk have wiped out the national database of police misconduct. Nearly 150,000 records of misconduct by federal officers erased, like it never happened.
Three years after Putin’s unjust and illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people are still bravely fighting to protect their democracy. Their fight is our fight. As they defend their freedom, they deserve our continued support.
People across America—and across the political spectrum—want these things. They're not controversial.
Republicans in congress, however, have made it clear they're not working for you.
They're working to give handouts to their billionaire donors—and to stick you with the tab.
I filed an amendment to prevent Elon Musk from secretly rifling through your personal information. Republicans oppose it.
I filed an amendment to require Elon Musk to disclose his finances. Republicans oppose it.
I filed an amendment to protect the safety and security of Americans working abroad. Republicans oppose it.
I filed an amendment to make our military stronger. Republicans oppose it.
I filed an amendment to get lead out of our drinking water. Republicans oppose it.
I filed an amendment to ensure that Social Security recipients get the benefits they're owed. Republicans oppose it.
I filed an amendment to make sure the federal government honors their contracts to support farmers across the country. Republicans oppose it.
I filed an amendment to expand nationwide coverage of IVF, with Sen. Duckworth. Republicans oppose it.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion 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.