Tammy Duckworth headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Illinois
Born
March 12, 1968
Age 58
Phone
(202) 224-2854
Office
524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Illinois

Tammy Duckworth

Ladda Tammy Duckworth is an American politician and Army National Guard veteran serving as the junior United States senator from Illinois, a seat she has held since 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, she represented Illinois's 8th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2013 to 2017.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 840
Yes29%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting7%
Party align97%
Cross-party2%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Tammy Duckworth headshot
Tammy Duckworth
U.S. SenatorDemocratIllinois
SoupScore
Tammy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 52 sponsored · 381 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

An outrageous attack on the rights and independence of the disability community. We will not let Trump’s DOJ drag us back to a time when Americans with disabilities were institutionalized against their will and ripped away from their families. Period.
Trump DOJ Outlines Dubious Path to Force People into Psychiatric Institutions
NEWS: I’m calling on the FAA to reject any pressure to rubberstamp Trump’s “Triumphal Arch.” The safety of the flying public should not be jeopardized for a vanity project designed to stroke the President’s ego.
A letter sent by U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth demanding the FAA reject any efforts from Trump to waste time and resources on his “Triumphal Arch.” Full letter can be found on the Senator’s website. Link in bio.
Heartbroken for the eight brave servicemembers who perished in today's crash at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Their service to our nation can never be repaid, but we owe it to them and their families to try.
Trump must provide the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a detailed briefing on the terms of this “deal” immediately. We need answers ASAP on how exactly this agreement would solve anything for the American people—if it even holds at all.
America is not better off than we were before. This war has cost 14 of our troops' lives and burned through $30 billion. Our economy is in shambles. It’s a total failure.
Under this "deal," we would be lifting sanctions and essentially be paying Iran to stop this war that Trump started. All while Americans continue suffering at the pump, grocery store and elsewhere as a direct result.
And don’t forget, Trump originally said he wanted “regime change.” But Iran is now led by a younger, more extreme Ayatollah who he’s just empowered with all these concessions.
So Trump just gifted Iran a new way to profit off a public waterway—and it may embolden other countries to follow suit. When I met with our Indo-Pacific partners recently, this was a huge concern. Our global economy only works when trade can run through international waters.
Iran's only concession isn't even a concession. Reopening a Strait that was open before the war began is not a "win" for us. And it won’t go back to how it was. Iran won't charge tolls for 60 days, but it may charge “fees.”
It also doesn’t stop Iran's strategy of arming rogue groups in the region. In fact, it seems like the Administration might hand Iran a cash infusion. $24 billion of frozen assets might be handed over. Almost as much as this war has already cost taxpayers.
This "deal" is only a 60-day ceasefire that doesn’t keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran's hands. There is no new pledge. No monitoring. Nothing like what we had under the JCPOA.
An “end” to this illegal and expensive war is all anyone has asked for for over 100 days, but we've seen the President's deals fall apart before. And ultimately, the main takeaway is that Trump has failed to deliver on every possible end state he's proposed. Let me explain.
This is who Trump deems “the worst of the worst." The wife of a 20-year Army and Texas National Guard Veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Snatching up our troops’ loved ones is no way to repay our military families.
10 years ago, one of the deadliest shootings in our nation's history took place at Pulse nightclub in Orlando. 49 were killed. Dozens more were injured. A night of terror, pain and loss for the LGBTQ+ community. Today, we remember the victims and their loved ones.
NEWS: In a complete reversal, Senate Republicans threw out my bill that would cover IVF for our servicemembers in the next defense bill. They supported it last year. And the year before. But this year, they chose to betray our heroes who dream of having a family. Outrageous.
Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee cleared the next defense authorization bill. I voted no. Trump continues to threaten strikes and operations that require ground troops. Two of our pilots were shot down. The Strait remains blocked. And families cannot afford gas or groceries.
Posts page 1Older posts →
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
840 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
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-02-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (55-44)
2025-02-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-45)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-46)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (77-23)
2025-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-38)
2025-02-03Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-01-30End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (83-13)
2025-01-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-35)
2025-01-30Confirm nomineeNOYESNomination Confirmed (80-17)
2025-01-29End debateNOYESCloture Motion Agreed to (78-20)
2025-01-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-42)
2025-01-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-42)
2025-01-28H.R. 23 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-28Confirm nomineeNOYESNomination Confirmed (77-22)
2025-01-27End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (97-0)
2025-01-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (68-29)
2025-01-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-23)
2025-01-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-34)
2025-01-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (61-39)
2025-01-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-01-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-49)
2025-01-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (74-25)
2025-01-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (72-26)
2025-01-22S. 6 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-21Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-01-21Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46)
2025-01-20Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (99-0)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (64-35)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (75-24)
2025-01-17S. 5 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-49)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (70-25)
2025-01-13S. 5 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10)
2025-01-09S. 5 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 3/5 majority required)

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 17 / 17