I’m calling for more federal funding to help local law enforcement hire new officers, bring back experienced ones, and strengthen community policing.
When officers know the neighborhoods they patrol, they prevent crime and earn trust. That’s how we keep people safe.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Arizona
Ruben Gallego
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes34%
No53%
Present0%
Not Voting13%
Party align92%
Cross-party8%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Ruben Gallego
U.S. SenatorDemocratArizona
SoupScore
Ruben's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 61 sponsored · 271 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
When Trump said he’d fight for American families, it turns out he just meant his own.
While you get higher prices at the supermarket and the doctor’s office, he gets 400 million-dollar jets and massive tax cuts.
Sydney and I are thinking of the victims and their loved ones after today’s tragic attack in Boulder.
This kind of antisemitic hate and violence has no place in our country.
Groceries, gas, rent—it’s all too high.
And Republicans’ response?
Make life more expensive by cutting Medicaid and food assistance so billionaires can get another tax cut.
If Republicans pass their budget bill:
14 million Americans lose healthcare
17 million kids lose food assistance
A handful of billionaires get a tax break.
It’s straight up stealing from the poor to feed the rich.
In Cochise County, Arizona, rural hospitals are under threat with the Republicans’ Medicaid cuts.
That means patients will drive hours for care. People will die.
We cannot let this happen.
I was a free lunch kid. That tray meant my mom could breathe a little easier—and I could just be a kid.
Now Republicans want to gut food assistance for millions of families.
It’s cruel. It’s needless. It’s not right.
Trump promised cheaper groceries.
He gave us a trade war, higher prices, and cuts to food aid.
The only people eating well are his billionaire buddies.
With prices rising and families stretched thin, workers should have every tool available to bargain for better wages.
But the Trump administration wants to close the office that investigates unfair labor practices in Arizona. I’m demanding answers.
Honored to spend Memorial Day at my own post, American Legion Post 41, with Gold Star Mothers, whose sons and daughters gave everything for this country.
On Memorial Day, we remember those who gave their lives for our country and recommit ourselves to fighting for the men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day.
I’ll always stand against attacks on veterans, the VA, and the benefits we’ve earned.
That’s why today we launched our Veterans Advisory Council, to hear directly from Arizona vets, provide actionable advice and fight back.
Trump and Republicans are fighting for an America where is harder for you to put food on the table and easier for billionaires to buy another yacht.
Their budget cuts billions from Medicaid and food assistance just to feed the rich.
This morning Republicans passed a budget that cuts Medicaid and food assistance to give billionaires tax cuts.
This is the most anti-working-class agenda we’ve ever seen.
I’m horrified by the murders of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky.
I’m praying for them, their families, and all of those at the Israeli embassy.
Antisemitism cannot exist in the United States, or anywhere.
This isn’t smart or tough policy. It’s chaos that doesn’t bring any more security.
It discourages people from showing up to court, making our immigration system less efficient — not more.
Bottom line: The Republican budget will automatically trigger cuts to MEDICARE.
Wild.
A new nonpartisan report confirms what we already knew: Republicans' budget bill is a disaster for working Americans.
Taking from the poorest 10% of Americans to give to the richest 10%. Straight up reverse Robin Hood.
Watch Secretary Noem try to explain why she needs a new $50 million jet for her propaganda tour
This isn’t theoretical. I’ve talked to Arizonans who rely on Medicaid/AHCCCS to stay alive.
This week, Republicans are voting to gut it.
Flood their phones. Show them who they’re hurting. It’s not over yet.
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 | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | 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 | 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 | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | 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.