My colleague @merkley.senate.gov has been delivering an epic marathon floor speech for over 20 hours to protest Pres Trump's growing authoritarianism.
I joined him to discuss the importance of protecting your data from misuse & abuse by this Administration.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Jack Reed
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes34%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align94%
Cross-party5%
Jack Reed
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Jack's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 42 sponsored · 188 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
TRUMP in July 2025: The new ballroom will be "near" the existing building but won't touch it. "Nothing will be torn down."
TRUMP in Oct. 2025:
Reposted byU.S. Senator Jack Reed
$250 million for his ballroom.
$40 billion for Argentina.
$172 million for Kristi Noel’s two private jets.
$0 to lower your health care premiums.
WIN FOR RI MARINE INTERESTS: After public pushback, U.S. Coast Guard abandons plan to remove navigational buoys.
I will continue to monitor this situation going forward to keep the public informed & ensure public outreach as part of any future decision-making process.
Most RIers can’t pay an extra $7,800 a year for the same health coverage they have now. With costs rising across the board, people are already tightening their belts.
Democrats have a plan to stop these huge health care cost hikes. Sure seems like Republicans don’t care.
From lead pipes to lead paint, raising awareness about dangers of lead poisoning helps build stronger, healthier communities. Proud to champion efforts to boost federal funds to mitigate lead hazards, strengthen clean water infrastructure, & help parents keep kids safe.
Being healthy shouldn’t just be for the wealthy.
That’s why @whitehouse.senate.gov & I are fighting to lower health care costs for all Americans.
Saving health care helps save lives. The time to act is now.
Reposted byU.S. Senator Jack Reed
Democrats are fighting for health care – especially for the more than 40,000 Rhode Islanders who will see their premiums skyrocket if Congress doesn’t work in a bipartisan way to extend the ACA tax credits.
Patriotism means standing up for American values, like democracy and respect for the rule of law.
Trump is betraying American farmers & taxpayers to prop up his buddy & foreign ideological ally, Argentinian President Javier Milei. Trump’s financial quagmire has no exit strategy, no endgame, & will cost BILLIONS of your tax dollars.
Reposted byU.S. Senator Jack Reed
#WATCH: 12 News caught up with U.S. Sen. Jack Reed during today's "No Kings" protest in Providence.
Read more:
https://www.wpri.com/news/politics/where-are-no-kings-protests-happening-in-ri-se-mass/
Proud to deliver federal funds for RI’s new State Health Laboratory. From helping to safeguard our drinking water to monitoring pollution to aiding public safety & criminal investigations through DNA testing, this facility will help make RI safer & healthier.
Higher health care cost increases for next year are already arriving in mailboxes.
DC Republicans sure seem to want you to pay hundreds of dollars more per month and get nothing new in return.
Dems have a plan to prevent unfair price hikes.
Politicians shouldn’t run taxpayer funded partisan ads. There’s even a law that bans it. Too bad Kristi Noem & DHS don’t want to follow it, so @blumenthal.senate.gov & I are calling it out: abcnews.go.com/Politics/dem...
Reposted byU.S. Senator Jack Reed
It doesn’t matter if you’re in a blue or a red state; health care premiums are set to skyrocket.
Democrats are fighting to lower those costs, no matter where you live or who you voted for.
Meanwhile, Republicans seem to only care about securing tax breaks for the top 1%.
Reposted byU.S. Senator Jack Reed
When people can’t afford desperately needed health care, they suffer. That’s why this fight is so serious. It’s a matter of life and death.
Reposted byU.S. Senator Jack Reed
There are a lot of falsehoods circulating around who benefits from ACA enhanced premium tax credits. So let’s clear it up in simple terms: two truths and a lie ⬇️
Trump is using the shutdown as an excuse to fire Americans who help students with disabilities around the country. He must reverse course and ensure no student is denied a quality education because of a disability.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | 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) |
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.