🧵Just wrapped a bipartisan trip to Europe.
We met with allies, defense officials, and diplomatic partners to reaffirm our shared commitment to security, democracy, and stability across the globe.
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.
Arizona’s small and Tribal police departments don’t have massive budgets or endless backup — but they show up every day to protect our communities.
I’m backing the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act of 2025 to get them the resources they need to keep Arizona safe.
Reposted bySenator Ruben Gallego
This Thursday, Join us at our Save Medicaid Town Hall in Yavapai Apache Nation. Sign up below!
forms.office.com/Pages/Respon...
If we’re serious about countering China, then we can’t let Russia win in Ukraine.
We’re coming to Flagstaff! Sign up for our veterans town hall this Friday!
forms.office.com/Pages/Respon...
This Thursday, Join us at our Save Medicaid Town Hall in Yavapai Apache Nation. Sign up below!
forms.office.com/Pages/Respon...
This week, we’re continuing our Town Hall Tour and heading to Northern Arizona. Hope to see you there!
Today is Tax Day. But because of Elon Musk and DOGE, Americans might wait longer for their refunds.
We should be focused on giving hardworking families a tax break, not making the ultra rich richer.
This is going to raise prices at the grocery store. There’s no question about it. Arizona businesses and shoppers will be harmed because this administration cares more about the profit margins of billionaires instead of lowering costs.
Families in Arizona are already stretching every dollar at the grocery store.
Now Congressional Republicans want to slash food assistance by billions of dollars just to give tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy.
Protecting Arizona means stopping fentanyl at the border.
Senator Kelly and I are calling on the Trump administration to finish critical upgrades at our ports of entry.
Arizona is in the midst of a housing crisis, and too often our disabled veterans are impacted the most.
This week, I introduced a bipartisan bill that makes a commonsense fix to aid eligibility—so more disabled veterans can access safe, affordable housing.
Wishing a happy Passover to all those celebrating!
Chag Sameach!
We’re staying in the fight
This is corruption at the highest level. We won’t let Trump get away with it
The new reports are clear: GOP plans to gut Medicaid would devastate Arizona.
- Health care coverage stripped from 2 million Arizonans
- 36,000+ jobs lost
- $3.7 billion blow to our economy
All to give billionaires a tax break.
🚨The S&P just had its worst 4-day drop ever—then its biggest gain since 2008. Trump said “BUY!!!” before suspending the tariffs.
Did Trump and his billionaire donors profit from insider trading? @schiff.senate.gov and I are demanding answers.
This is why I’m calling for an Inspector General at the US Trade Representative. Trump shouldn’t be able to get away with giving tariff exemptions to all his rich friends and donors while everyday Americans and small businesses suffer.
We’re unleashing Arizona’s era of high-tech manufacturing dominance through legislation like the CHIPS Act.
Not whatever this nonsense is with Trump’s trade war.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-01 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-10-01 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | S. 2806 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-43) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-19 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-16 | S. Con. Res. 22 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62) |
| 2025-09-16 | S.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2025-09-15 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-10 | S. 2296 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-09-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-43) |
| 2025-09-04 | S. 2296 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-02 | S. 2296 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (71-23) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | — | — | Nomination Confirmed (72-22) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (59-35) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (52-42) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Nomination Confirmed (78-17) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-19) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
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.