Making sure Remotely Piloted Aircraft crews – like those at Creech AFB – have continued access to mental health services through the VA once separated from the military.
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 — 783
Yes37%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align89%
Cross-party11%
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 · 60 sponsored · 217 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Ensuring servicemembers and veterans who were exposed to radiation and toxins during their service, including at classified locations within the Nevada Test and Training Range, can prove their exposure to access the PACT Act benefits they’ve earned.
Every year, the Senate Armed Services Committee sets policy & authorizes funding for our national defense.
Proud to have secured several major wins for servicemembers in Nevada in this year’s bill. Here are a few highlights: 🧵
Hundreds of thousands of Nevadans rely on Medicaid to access lifesaving care. Trump and Congressional Republicans put Nevadans’ health at risk when they cut Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
Disgraceful.
Our kids are our future – and setting them up for success goes far beyond their test scores.
Thank you to the Nevada Association of School Superintendents for a great conversation about how we can work together to support students in all areas of their lives. Our kids are #MoreThanJustTheScore.
Now, servicemembers won’t be refunded for these fees they shouldn’t have been charged in the first place.
Shameful. (2/2)
Our servicemembers were charged predatory overdraft fees, and a consumer protection agency fought to secure a reimbursement for them.
Then, the Trump Admin gutted that agency and dismissed the lawsuit. (1/2)
I believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to live the American Dream.
We need to build an economy where families can put food on the table, afford a roof over their heads, and save for their retirement. I’ll keep fighting for that future.
Is anyone surprised that Trump’s firing of Social Security staff has put strain on the agency?
This is an affront to seniors who paid into Social Security their whole lives and now face mounting obstacles to access their benefits.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
Read more:
nevadacurrent.com/2025/07/09/u...
Clean energy tax credits have generated billions of dollars of investment in Nevada. Republicans voted to repeal them – killing good-paying jobs in our state and raising families’ energy bills.
Senate Republicans just blocked @cortezmasto.senate.gov and my attempt to pass our bipartisan bill to repeal their misguided provision to unfairly tax gambling losses.
I won’t stop fighting to reverse this harmful provision and protect Nevada’s gaming and tourism economy.
I’m fighting to change that – because every veteran exposed to toxins deserves access to the care and support they’ve earned, and they should have parity with their civilian counterparts. (4/4)
What’s more, civilian employees at the Department of Energy, working on the same sites already receive these benefits. So why are our servicemembers still being denied? (3/4)
But some veterans who served at classified locations within the Nevada Test and Training Range are being left behind – unable to prove their exposure to the VA and locked out of these benefits. (2/4)
We passed the PACT Act to ensure veterans suffering from illnesses due to exposure to burn pits, radiation, and other toxins during their service can access the critical care and benefits they’ve earned. (1/4)
Call it what you want, but cutting staff at the VA under the guise of “natural attrition” is still a reduction in force. Veterans WILL feel the impact – despite what VA leadership says.
It’s a shameful disservice to those who have risked so much to serve our nation.
Congressional Republicans voted to kick millions of Americans off of their health insurance – including over 100,000 Nevadans.
Those who need care the most will lose their access to Medicaid just so billionaires can get more tax cuts. Congressional Republicans should be ashamed.
Each year, I’m honored to nominate Nevadans interested in serving our nation to attend a United States Service Academy.
Our application portal is now open through October 31. Apply today: rosen.senate.gov/services/academy-nominations/
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History783 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
783 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | 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) |
| 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 | 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 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
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.