Edward J. Markey headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
Born
July 11, 1946
Age 79
Phone
(202) 224-2742
Office
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Massachusetts

Edward J. Markey

Edward John Markey is an American politician serving as the junior United States senator from the state of Massachusetts, a seat he has held since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he served 20 terms as the U.S. representative for Massachusetts's 7th congressional district from 1976 to 2013. Before that, he was a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1973 to 1976. When Senator Patrick Leahy retired in 2023, Markey became the dean of New England's Congressional delegation.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 851
Yes26%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align96%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Edward J. Markey headshot
Edward J. Markey
U.S. SenatorDemocratMassachusetts
SoupScore
Edward J.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 146 sponsored · 346 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

As the author of the program that has already delivered more than $68 billion to schools and libraries, I’m troubled the FCC’s new rule will make it harder for kids to get online and to close the digital divide. We need to strengthen E-Rate, not put up new barriers.
The Trump EPA puts the value of a human life at zero dollars in their rulemakings to make it easier for them to pollute. They put a cost on corporate expenses, but not on asthma, heart disease, or exposure to toxic chemicals.
The Trump administration talks about trillions of savings for big corporations—but ignores the costs facing Americans at their kitchen tables every day because of their rollbacks.
$25 billion for Trump’s war of choice. And that's just how much Pete Hegseth is willing to admit they're spending. American families and small businesses can’t afford healthcare. They can’t afford electric bills. And they can’t afford Trump’s tariff taxes. End Trump’s war now.
U.S. war in Iran has cost $25 billion so far, says Pentagon official | Reuters
Trump wants to cut a quarter billion dollars for worker protection programs that help keep you safe on the job. He already gave billionaire CEOs a tax cut—now he wants to sacrifice your health to them too.
Trump’s Budget Cuts:
- $234 MILLION FROM WORKER PROTECTIONS
Budget of the U.S. Government
Worker Protection Agencies (-$234 million). The Budget emphasizes outreach, education, and assistance—rather than harsh penalties—for employers and workers trying to comply with labor laws and standards, and eliminates overbearing and burdensome regulations. This approach makes better use of taxpayer dollars while prioritizing worker safety and American economic strength. The Budget eliminates wasteful and unnecessary spending to refocus the Department’s worker protection agencies on the core missions of protecting American workers’ safety, health, wages, and benefits. For example, the Budget proposes to eliminate OSHA’s Susan Harwood Training Grants, which under previous administrations:

Were weaponized to fund questionable activities such as “workers’ rights training,” for migrant farmworkers, as opposed to occupational safety training; and

Funded woke organizations like the National Day Labor
From reversing their stance on the pesticide RoundUp after meeting with its CEO, to appointing a Chevron & Big Tobacco lobbyist as a senior health official — this administration doesn't have a "Make America Healthy Again" agenda - it has a "Make Corporate Donors Richer" agenda.
Former tobacco industry executive Stephen Sayle has been appointed to a senior leadership role at the CDC.

Sayle was a lobbyist for Chevron before working for Big Tobacco.
I’m relieved the rest of this year’s LIHEAP funds are finally being released—following pressure from me and other Senators across the aisle. Heating and cooling assistance is critical for families to stay safe and healthy. No one should have to choose between bills and chills.
Final LIHEAP funds released after bipartisan push from U.S. senators
Trump wants a $1.5 trillion slush fund for his “Department of War.” That’s eight times what he wants to spend on health and education combined. Americans want health care—not warfare.
Trump’s Budget Cuts:
- 1.5 TRILLION TO FUND WAR
Budget of the U.S. Government
The Budget for the Department of War (DOW) advances President Trump’s delivery of peace through strength by reinvesting in the foundations of American military power—from defense industrial capacity to the readiness and health of the force—and ensuring the United States maintains the world’s most powerful and capable military. America has already begun to strengthen and reinvigorate the military by committing tens of billions of dollars to new and innovative programs such as the Golden Dome for America, and making critical investments in the defense industrial base. By continuing to provide the resources necessary to rebuild America’s military, the Budget re-establishes deterrence, revives the warrior ethos of America’s Armed Forces, and prioritizes investments against the most acute national security threats. The Budget restores the readiness and lethality of the force by ensuring America’s warfighters are t
At a time when HHS Secretary RFK Jr. is demonizing vaccines and measles cases are surging, Trump wants to cut $356 MILLION from the agency responsible for preventing and responding to health emergencies. How exactly does this Make America Healthy Again?

Trump’s Budget Cuts:
- $356 MILLION FROM EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Budget of the U.S. Government
Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) (-$356 million). Overextended by additional responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, ASPR moved away from its mission to coordinate the Federal emergency response in the United States, leading to confusion regarding ASPR’s role in preparedness and response. The Budget refocuses ASPR by supporting effective biodefense programs through the development of medical countermeasures, maintaining critical supplies in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) for emergencies, and strengthening domestic pharmaceutical resilience through the procurement and maintenance of the Strategic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Reserve. Examples of ASPR’s overreach include:

Public health events in the United States have led to a dramatic expansion of SNS responsibilities. Federal policymakers never intended for the SNS to equip every State in the
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
851 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
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationNOYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-41)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (61-35)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNOYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (91-7, 3/5 majority required)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-21End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (44-43)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (46-36)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-34)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-31)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-43)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (51-48)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)

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 9 / 18Next →