Kirsten E. Gillibrand headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from New York
Born
December 9, 1966
Age 59
Phone
(202) 224-4451
Office
478 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New York

Kirsten E. Gillibrand

Kirsten Elizabeth Gillibrand is an American lawyer and politician serving as the junior United States senator from New York since 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, she served as member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2007 to 2009.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 783
Yes31%
No68%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Kirsten E. Gillibrand headshot
Kirsten E. Gillibrand
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew York
SoupScore
Kirsten E.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 51 sponsored · 294 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Without key Affordable Care Act tax credits, Americans like Lori Hunt would have to pay more for their health insurance than their mortgage. And yet Republicans refuse to work with us to lower health care costs. It's baffling.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all benefit from key Affordable Care Act tax credits. And nearly 80% of the public want us to extend these tax credits. Republicans should be working for YOU, not shutting down the government.
Amidst the chaos, we secured two important amendments in this year's defense bill — my amendment ensuring our military can take down drone incursions and Senator Kaine's amendment to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization.
Today, we mark 2 years since 1,200 innocent people – including dozens of fellow Americans – were murdered by Hamas. They were mothers & fathers, sons & daughters, neighbors & friends. I've fought every day to help bring the hostages home, & my heart is with the families on this painful anniversary.
President Trump is mad at Senate Democrats for fighting to lower health care costs, but he's punishing the American people. This is your money, your taxes. Your community shouldn't be targeted or punished because your state's electoral votes didn't go to President Trump. It's plain un-American.
Secretary Duffy promised me that the Trump administration would not pull back funding for these two major infrastructure projects in NYC. Their announcement is a complete betrayal of a commitment made to New Yorkers. They're using New Yorkers' tax dollars to score political points. It's shameful.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
783 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
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (81-15)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (21-75)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (15-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (14-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (45-50)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (42-53)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (44-51)
2025-08-01Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114)YESYESMotion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-41)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-41)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-38)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 34 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (24-73)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 41 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (27-70)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)

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 7 / 16Next →