- Not to take on prescription price gouging
- Not to protect veterans’ health care
- Not to protect our avian flu response
- Not to protect funding for firefighters
- Not to protect funding for police officers
All to pay for tax breaks for corporations.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 789
Yes74%
No24%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. SenatorRepublicanMississippi
SoupScore
Cindy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 38 sponsored · 183 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
On a Saturday too? Wow — well, here’s a summary of what Republicans voted to do this week:
- Defund Medicaid
- Defund Medicare
- Not to protect IVF funding
- Not to protect food assistance
Our military is not the personal army of the President, and senior military officers serve our country not one man.
This is very alarming.
Just so everybody is clear on Republican priorities:
We put up an amendment to make sure nobody making over $500 million gets a tax cut. Republicans voted against it.
Senate Republicans once again showed us their true colors last night.
They want to pay for tax breaks for their rich corporate friends by defunding your Medicaid and Medicare.
Unreal.
Reposted byTina Smith
It's nearly 5am and Republicans just rammed through their pro-billionaire, anti-middle class budget blueprint.
In order to pass massive tax giveaways for billionaires, they're going to defund Medicaid, slash veterans benefits, & force kids to go hungry.
Make sure everyone knows it.
When your next prescription never shows, your paycheck is lost, or your local paper stops arriving, you know who to blame.
I’ve spent years fighting for better postal service for all Minnesotans, especially in the most rural places. This will hurt every single one of us.
Any Republicans want to grow a spine and stand up to this with us?
Many of you represent rural areas who will suffer the most from this!
Reposted byTina Smith
Reposted byTina Smith
Giving tax cuts to the wealthiest while gutting programs families rely on—that’s the Republican plan. Democrats just tried to pass an amendment that would prevent a tax cut for those earning more than one billion dollars.
Senate Republicans blocked it.
Bottom line: Abortion bans are cruel. And women in this country are being harmed by them every day.
Denying women life-saving care shouldn't happen - and yes, abortions can be life-saving care.
Republicans are trying to pass a measure in the dark of night to screw over working people so they can send a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires and big corporations.
We won’t let them do it without a fight.
Trump and Musk have fired Minnesotans like:
-- Park Rangers at Voyageurs
-- Fire protection engineers
-- Workers who care for our veterans
-- Workers who care for folks with disabilities
-- Workers who dole out small business loans
How does this help anyone?
Just because DOGE doesn’t agree with a policy doesn’t make it fraud or waste. What they’re really talking about is cutting your benefits.
He said he wasn't going to meddle with American's health care and now he's (unsurprisingly) going back on his word.
Making it harder to see your doctor and pay your medical bills so he can give a massive tax break to billionaires and corporations. That’s what this is about.
I stand with National Parks Service staff like Kate, a Minnesotan who was fired by Trump and Musk from her job as Park Ranger at Voyageurs National Park.
(P.S. feel free to follow my Instagram @SenatorTinaSmith)
www.instagram.com/senatortinas...
Can’t post my Instagram videos on Bluesky because of their 60s time limit, but I thought I’d just share this short outtake.
I love my job, and these hard fights are worth having… but man are they hard.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History789 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
789 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | YES | YES | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
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.
Page 1 / 16Next →