Our National Parks are being pushed to the limit without the staffing and funding they need.
I championed a bill to fully fund our parks that passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support—we need to get it across the finish line.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon
Jeff Merkley
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 788
Yes26%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align96%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Jeff Merkley
U.S. SenatorDemocratOregon
SoupScore
Jeff's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 93 sponsored · 412 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Community Warehouse in Portland turns surplus furniture into support for families who need it most! They’re taking powerful, practical strides to support housing stability and human dignity. Such important work!
www.forbes.com/sites/jeremy...
Reposted bySenator Jeff Merkley
The Everglades internment camp threatens human rights, due process, Tribal interests and this sensitive environment.
@merkley.senate.gov and I led 60+ Democrats to demand transparency and answers from DHS. abcnews.go.com/US/democrati...
@wassermanschultz.house.gov and I teamed up to demand answers from the Trump Administration on the cruel and dangerous Alligator Alcatraz facility—an independent, unaccountable detention system that threatens human rights and due process for migrants.
Voting by mail protects the right to vote.
I'll do all I can to make it an option everywhere.
Hell No. Folks in red and blue states alike—including Oregon—have been voting by mail for years. It’s convenient, secure, and counters corrupt Election Day tactics–like understaffing precinct voting centers–designed to obstruct voting in targeted communities.
Reposted bySenator Jeff Merkley
What the hell is a “Pocket Rescission”?
Ranking Member @merkley.senate.gov explains how the Trump Administration may use this illegal tactic to repeal funds Congress has already approved, putting families at risk across the country.
Last month, we passed a bill to ban congressional stock trading out of a Senate committee—the first step toward this becoming law.
I’ve been sounding the alarm for years on this. It’s way past time we got this done!
@lujan.senate.gov and I introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act because the American people deserve the truth about Epstein and those connected to him.
Republicans BLOCKED it.
We need to stop Big Pharma’s price gouging in its tracks and protect patients from sky high Rx drug prices!
That’s why I wrote the End Price Gouging for Medications Act—we need to get this passed!
Reposted bySenator Jeff Merkley
Trump's Big, Betrayal of a Bill, plus his disastrous tariffs, will make 90% of families worse off through higher prices and slashed programs.
His entire economic plan is families lose, billionaires win.
See for yourself. ⬇️
budgetlab.yale.edu/research/com...
Republicans voted to rip health care and food assistance away from millions of people and to ADD $3.4 TRILLION to the debt, all so billionaires could get a massive tax break. Terrible.
Reposted bySenator Jeff Merkley
🚨New CBO Analysis Confirms Republicans’ Big Ugly Law Steals from the Poor, Gives to the Ultra-Rich
Statement from Ranking Member @merkley.senate.gov, @schumer.senate.gov, @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social, and Rep. Boyle here:
www.budget.senate.gov/ranking-memb...
Reposted bySenator Jeff Merkley
Ranking Member @merkley.senate.gov and @democrats.senate.gov are fighting like hell to reverse the Republicans’ devastating cuts to rural health care in their Big, Ugly Betrayal of a bill.
Trump sending the National Guard to Washington, D.C. is a frighteningly clear escalation of his efforts to push us into an authoritarian strongman state.
As he tests the limits of his power, I’ll fight against attacks on D.C. home rule every step of the way.
Reposted bySenator Jeff Merkley
Trump said over and over again that he wouldn’t touch Social Security, but his Big, Betrayal of a bill is running the Trust Fund dry.
Workers will see their hard-earned benefits depleted while Trump hands another tax break to billionaires.
Members of Congress are here to serve the public, not pad their stock portfolios. It’s long past time we banned congressional trading.
We have momentum on our side—let’s get this done!
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History788 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
788 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
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.