Mike Levin headshot
At a Glance
Seat
Representative for California District 49
Born
October 28, 1978
Age 47
Phone
(202) 225-3906
Office
2352 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Democrat|California District 49

Mike Levin

Voting Record — 612
Yes46%
No53%
Present1%
Not Voting1%
Party align97%
Cross-party3%
SoupScore
District Map

Congressional District 49

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Mike Levin headshot
Mike Levin
U.S. RepresentativeDemocratCalifornia District 49
SoupScore
Mike's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 25 sponsored · 101 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

This is your daily reminder that Trump and Republicans are spending billions of your tax dollars on an unauthorized war in Iran and Stephen Miller’s ICE agenda while gutting Medicaid, slashing SNAP, and driving up your health care costs.
Killing it means most enrollees will pay more next year, right as the cost of groceries, housing, utilities, and everything else is already through the roof. Seniors on fixed incomes do not have that room. This is exactly the opposite of what they need right now.
The Trump administration just announced it is ending a program that has been holding down Medicare drug premiums, and the timing could not be worse. That program kept premiums lower for around 25 million seniors on Part D drug plans.
Federal figures show the detained population with convictions has barely moved in a year, while arrests of people whose only alleged offense is a civil immigration violation keep climbing. Stephen Miller set the quota, and agents are sweeping up hardworking people to hit it.
For months the White House has sold its immigration crackdown as a crime and safety measure. Their own data says otherwise. In June 2026, ICE booked 43,138 people into detention, a record for this administration. The fastest-growing group was immigrants with no criminal record at all.
Reposted byMike Levin
Politics, and nothing else. The Energy Department’s own lawyers conceded not one of those grants was cut for any programmatic, statutory, or performance reason. Wright said the same thing under oath to the Senate and the Science Committee.
Reposted byMike Levin
The Trump administration has now admitted in its own court filings that it terminated nearly 300 energy grants “based solely” on the political identity of the recipient’s state, whether it voted for Kamala Harris and had two Democratic senators.
He told a similar story to the Science Committee in June. His attorneys, under oath and under court order, said the opposite. Twice before, federal judges ordered these grants restored after the Department made the same confession.
The Department conceded it did not rely on “programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factors.” Grants in red states doing identical work were left untouched. This is not a one-time slip by Wright, who told CNN last October the decisions were “all based on facts.”
In a July court filing, the Department of Energy admitted that 283 grants were canceled “solely” based on whether the recipient sat in a state that voted for Kamala Harris and elected two Democratic senators.
He looked me in the eye and called it “a timing question, not a decision question.” He said “the decisions were nonpolitical.” That was not true. And now his own lawyers have admitted it.
On April 17, I sat across from Energy Secretary Chris Wright in an Appropriations hearing and asked a simple question about why his grant terminations landed almost entirely in blue states.
This is your daily reminder that Trump and Republicans are spending billions of your tax dollars on an unauthorized war in Iran and Stephen Miller’s ICE agenda while gutting Medicaid, slashing SNAP, and driving up your health care costs.
Reposted byMike Levin
In an Appropriations Committee hearing earlier this year, I questioned Energy Secretary Chris Wright about the billions his department canceled in clean energy grants. He looked me in the eye and told me the decisions were made on the merits and had nothing to do with politics. That was a lie.
You cannot withhold funds Congress appropriated as a weapon to punish states for how they voted. It is an abuse of power, plain and simple, and the people who lied to Congress about it need to answer for it. I am not letting this go. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/b...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
612 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
2025-03-06H. Res. 189 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-03-06S.J. Res. 11 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-03-05H. Res. 189 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESFailed
2025-03-05H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-03-05H.J. Res. 61 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-03-04H. Res. 177 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-03-04H. Res. 177 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-03-04H.R. 758 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-03-03H.R. 856 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-27H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-02-26H.J. Res. 35 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-02-26H.R. 695 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-26H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-02-26H.R. 804 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-26H.R. 788 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-25H. Res. 161 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-02-25H. Res. 161 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-02-25H.R. 818 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-25H.R. 832 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-24H.R. 825 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-13H.R. 35 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-02-12H.R. 77 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-02-12H.R. 77 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESFailed
2025-02-11H. Res. 122 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-02-11H. Res. 122 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-02-10H.R. 736 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-10H.R. 692 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-07H.R. 26 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-02-07H.R. 26 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESFailed
2025-02-06H.R. 27 (119th)Final passageYESNOPassed
2025-02-06H.R. 27 (119th)Approve amendmentYESYESFailed
2025-02-05H. Res. 93 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-02-05H. Res. 93 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-02-05H.R. 776 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-02-04H.R. 43 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-01-23H.R. 21 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-01-23H.R. 21 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESFailed
2025-01-23H.R. 471 (119th)Final passageYESNOPassed
2025-01-23H.R. 375 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-01-22S. 5 (119th)Final passageYESNOPassed
2025-01-22H.R. 165 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-01-22H. Res. 53 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-01-22H. Res. 53 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-01-22H.R. 187 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-01-21H.R. 186 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-01-16H.R. 30 (119th)Final passageYESNOPassed
2025-01-16H.R. 30 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESFailed
2025-01-15H.R. 33 (119th)Final passageYESYESPassed
2025-01-15H.R. 144 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-01-15H.R. 164 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed

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 12 / 13Next →