From Texas to Minnesota, millions of hardworking Americans are seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket. Enough is enough.
The path forward is clear: the President and Congressional Republicans must negotiate in good faith to stop this health crisis.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Minnesota
Amy Klobuchar
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 783
Yes34%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align94%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Amy Klobuchar
U.S. SenatorDemocratMinnesota
SoupScore
Amy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 87 sponsored · 411 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Just left Supreme Ct, where Justices asked many pointed questions about Trump’s power to (in Roberts’ words) “impose tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time.”
Trump’s tariff taxes are crushing small businesses and cost families $2K a year.
Trump’s tariff taxes are crushing small business owners like Beth Benike, Minnesota’s Small Business Person of the Year.
We’re fighting back in Congress, in the Courts, and alongside our Constituents.
Headed into the Supreme Court to watch the case on overturning Trump’s reckless tariffs, which are a $2,000 tax on families.
The Justices must follow the Constitution & the law to rule against Trump’s costly power grab.
Tens of millions of Americans – including nearly 1 million North Carolinians – are standing on the edge of a health care premium cliff.
I was joined by State Sen. Gladys Robinson and small business owner Daniel Ayers to discuss why we must prevent premiums from skyrocketing:
Reposted bySenator Amy Klobuchar
When talking about Democrats, Trump said, “If they don’t vote, it’s their problem.”
If Trump doesn’t sit down with Democrats and negotiate to reopen the government, he will be the problem for millions of Americans losing their food aid and paying double for health care.
Reposted bySenator Amy Klobuchar
Republicans slashed SNAP and Medicaid in their Big Ugly Bill so they could hand out tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country, but now refuse to extend health care tax credits so working Americans can afford their health care.
Talk about having the wrong priorities.
The President needs to follow court orders and provide food assistance to veterans, seniors & families in need. His own administration said it would yesterday.
He must comply—and should provide SNAP in full, not just half.
The administration is hiding who is paying for Trump’s gilded ballroom.
And many of the big donors giving Trump money have a reason to … they want the administration’s signoff on their deals.
This is corruption, plain and simple.
NEW: The WH did not disclose several donors to the ballroom who have business before Trump:
▶️Jeff Yass, investor in TikTok parent company: $2.5m+ to ballroom
▶️BlackRock, trying to buy Panama Canal ports: $2.5m+
▶️Extremity Care, Medicare reimbursement issues: $2.5m
▶️Vantive, Medicare reimbursement
I met Christi, a small business owner from Eagan whose employee, a cancer survivor, is seeing his family’s health costs rise by $400 a month.
Christi helps pay for his premiums, doing everything she can to keep him insured. This is who we’re fighting for.
The courts have ordered the administration to use its contingency fund for SNAP—and have made clear it can use its transfer authorities to fully fund SNAP.
It is not enough to do the bare minimum—they should do everything they can to ensure Americans put food on the table.
Reposted bySenator Amy Klobuchar
Health care costs are already sky-high for working families. The last thing Coloradans need is for their insurance premiums to increase by hundreds of dollars a month.
AI presents many opportunities for innovation, but there are risks that we need to address.
We need common-sense rules of the road like our bipartisan NO FAKES Act, which is even supported by Google, to protect people’s voice and image from being used in unauthorized deepfakes.
Christi runs a small business in Eagan, MN and helps pay her employee's premiums.
Now those costs are skyrocketing because Congressional Republicans refuse to extend the health care tax credits.
We must prevent these price hikes.
Donald Trump asked for clarity on yesterday’s SNAP ruling. Well the judge just provided it:
Reposted bySenator Amy Klobuchar
Today is November 1st. Today, 24 million families woke up to outrageous health care costs. Today, Republicans leave them behind.
Today enrollment for health insurance opens and millions of Americans including breast cancer survivors will see their premiums double.
The President needs to come to the table and work with us to extend the health care tax credits so Americans don’t lose their care.
🚨 A second judge grants a temporary restraining order requiring USDA to provide SNAP using contingency funding “as soon as possible.”
Trump has no excuse: He cannot take food assistance away from families in need.
GOOD NEWS: A judge ruled the administration is required by law to use emergency funding to provide food assistance to families in need.
Trump has no excuse to withhold food assistance. If the admin does not issue SNAP, it is purely a cruel political decision, not a legal one.
Happy Halloween!
The scariest room in the Capitol is the House Chamber .… where hundreds of Republicans disappeared 6 weeks ago… and haven't been seen since. Spooky stuff! 👻
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History783 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
783 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | 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 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | 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) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
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 →