The Trump administration’s attempts to undermine Social Security are causing havoc to my constituents. We need to fund Social Security, not take shots at it.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Washington
Maria Cantwell
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 785
Yes29%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting0%
Party align97%
Cross-party2%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Maria Cantwell
U.S. SenatorDemocratWashington
SoupScore
Maria's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 23 sponsored · 154 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
I voted NO on Dr. Oz, the Administration’s nominee to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
He wouldn’t say no to Medicaid cuts. He certainly won’t say no to President Trump or Elon Musk.
Every American deserves equal pay for equal work, and on #EqualPayDay, we're reminded that women with full-time jobs make only 83 cents for every dollar paid to a man.
Today I joined my colleagues in reintroducing the Paycheck Fairness Act to end pay discrimination.
Seattle-area doctors, patients, and parents joined me to say NO to Medicaid cuts.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, millions of Americans have better access to health care.
Now, 15 years after the act was signed into law, we are fighting to protect their coverage.
He will be missed by all who knew him. Our thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family.
He was a true champion. (3/3)
Among the many issues he fought for was more affordable housing. Once we met for coffee and ended up on a walking tour downtown with Frank pointing out various successful affordable housing projects and Frank advocating why we needed so much more. (2/3)
We never want to see a disaster like this again. That’s why I worked with Rep. DelBene to pass a law that’s improved how we recognize and prepare for catastrophic landslide risks. Along with Senator Murkowski, I’m now working to renew and expand that program. (4/4)
Being with the families, first responders, and survivors in the aftermath of that terrible tragedy is something I will never forget. (3/4)
And to the first responders who searched for and comforted survivors, and restored services to areas cut off by the landslide, today we renew our gratitude to you. (2/4)
Today, on the 11th anniversary of the Oso landslide, we honor the 43 people whose lives were suddenly cut short. My thoughts are with their friends and families on this difficult day. (1/4)
We need to stand up and fight against Medicaid cuts.
We need to tell people that Medicaid is a lifesaving program that has been successful.
Medicaid has helped us reduce uncompensated care costs, it has given sick people hope, and it's helped our hospitals provide great care.
There is a tsunami of Medicaid cuts coming at the people of Washington, and I guarantee you this is not a drill.
We need everyone to call their member of Congress and the White House and say: “This massive cut to Medicaid is not what we want.”
In the Pacific Northwest, we like opening markets. We like building alliances. We like innovating our way to success.
Sen. Cantwell pushes for ‘technology NATO’ as one way to counter China rather than tariffs https://www.geekwire.com/2025/sen-cantwell-pushes-for-technology-nato-as-one-way-to-counter-china-rather-than-tariffs/
The chaotic tariffs that this administration is pushing have never proved successful in the history of the United States. And yet that is the preposterous trail that we are now on.
Congress has the authority and responsibility to direct federal spending based on the needs of their constituents. Turning that work over to the White House puts important programs like NOAA experts working on salmon recovery or creating weather forecasts at risk. (4/4)
... and impacts our farmers by cutting $57 million from USDA’s important agriculture research facilities. A bipartisan congressional effort to finish all appropriations bills would have delivered better results for taxpayers. (3/4)
This bill endangers the health of Americans by cutting $280 million from the National Institutes of Health; jeopardizes the state of Washington’s maritime economy by slashing the Army Corps of Engineers by 44 percent ... (2/4)
I am not going to vote for a partisan funding bill that makes deep cuts to essential government functions. (1/4)
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History785 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
785 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | 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 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | 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 | NO | 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) |
| 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 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
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.