Trump’s abortion ban for veterans is an extreme effort to eliminate the fundamental right to access reproductive care for the women who bravely served our nation in uniform. 🧵
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Nevada
Jacky Rosen
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes38%
No61%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align90%
Cross-party10%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Jacky Rosen
U.S. SenatorDemocratNevada
SoupScore
Jacky's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 70 sponsored · 229 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Paying our TSA agents shouldn’t be partisan – yet Republicans have rejected our bills to pay them NINE times.
Facilities like this are essential for the well-being of rural communities in Nevada that often face barriers to accessing health care, and I’ll keep working across party lines to deliver the federal resources our rural Nevada communities deserve.
I’m pleased to have secured funding to support the expansion of New Frontier Treatment Center in Fallon.
Reposted bySenator Jacky Rosen
A month ago, the national price of gasoline as $2.93 a gallon.
Today it's $3.94.
One man is to blame: Donald Trump.
The suspension of Global Entry was one of Kristi Noem’s many terrible decisions as Secretary of DHS, and it would’ve hit NV especially hard.
I’m glad to have pushed back and gotten her to change course. Now it’s time for Senate Republicans to stop standing in the way of TSA agents getting paid.
Reposted bySenator Jacky Rosen
@democrats.senate.gov have brought clean bills to the floor of the Senate *eight* times this month to fund the TSA. Republicans didn't even have to vote for seven of them - all they had to do was not get in the way.
The GOP blocked TSA funding each time.
Democrats have been sounding the alarm about the health care crisis for years, and instead of working with us to address it, Washington Republicans did nothing to stop the expiration of tax credits, which is now making prices rise even higher.
Americans are skipping meals, driving less, and falling behind on paying their bills just so they can afford health care. 🧵
This Administration has burned through money on vanity projects like Kristi Noem’s self-promoting ad campaign while Nevadans lose their health care and struggle to make ends meet.
Great to meet with Team Tahoe and Chairman Smokey of the Washoe Tribe to talk about our continued partnership to preserve beautiful Lake Tahoe for generations to come.
It’s great to see the impact of federal resources on our community, and I’ll keep working to make sure Nevada gets our fair share.
I helped secure federal funding to support renovations to the historic California Building in Reno – and last week, my team attended the ribbon cutting ceremony to celebrate the completion of the project!
I tried AGAIN to pass my bill to pay TSA workers.
Once again, Senate Republicans blocked it.
Reposted bySenator Jacky Rosen
We tried to get funding to TSA workers SEVEN times. Republicans blocked them all.
Don’t let them tell you this isn’t their fault.
I have a simple bill to pay TSA agents while we negotiate ICE reforms – and Senate Republicans have blocked EVERY attempt to pass it.
I’m headed to the Senate floor soon to try yet again. Are Senate Republicans too scared of Donald Trump to do the right thing and let TSA agents get paychecks?
Let’s be clear: The “SAVE Act” is an extreme Republican attempt to distract you from rising prices at the gas pump, in the grocery store, and for your health care.
Your health is the most important thing you have, and I’ll keep fighting to protect the ACA from Republican cuts.
Democrats built on this landmark law by creating enhanced premium tax credits to lower costs even more, but Trump & Washington Republicans refused to work with us to extend them and let the credits expire. Now, Americans are skipping medications & doctor’s visits just so they can afford their care.
The Affordable Care Act was signed into law sixteen years ago – allowing millions of hardworking families to afford health care. 🧵
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History851 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
851 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 3 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-03 | S. 9 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-27 | H.J. Res. 35 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 12 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 10 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-52) |
| 2025-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (54-44) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42) |
| 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 | YES | 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 | YES | 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 | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
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.