Reposted byChuck Schumer
Warner, with Gabbard and Ratcliffe sitting in front of him: "If this was the case of a military officer or an intelligence officer and they had this kind of behavior, they would be fired."
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New York
Charles E. Schumer
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 789
Yes27%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Charles E. Schumer
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew York
SoupScore
Charles E.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 25 sponsored · 154 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted byChuck Schumer
Tulsi Gabbard refuses to answer Warner's questions about the Signal group chat
The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on Trump’s nomination of Frank Bisignano to lead Social Security.
Trump and DOGE are already making it harder to access benefits.
A vote for Frank Bisignano to lead the Social Security Administration is a vote to cut Social Security. Period.
Any Republican who was up in arms years ago about emails should be outraged by the Defense Secretary's carelessness.
Secretary Hegseth showed a colossal lack of judgement.
He put American national security in danger, and he put our troops in danger.
For Pete Hegseth to send war plans in such a reckless way puts every single American at risk.
He intentionally put highly classified information on an unclassified device.
Every single Senator must demand accountability. The Senate must investigate.
2016 Pete Hegseth says 2025 Pete Hegseth should be held accountable.
This is exactly why the Senate must investigate now.
Senator Thune and the Republican Majority are silent while Social Security faces one of the gravest dangers in its history.
wsj.com/politics/pol...
Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s real goal: They want to run Social Security to the ground.
They want to make Social Security so dysfunctional, so chaotic, so unworkable, in order to justify cutting benefits for the American people.
wsj.com/politics/pol...
Trump is directing the Social Security Admin to prevent Americans from signing up for benefits over the phone.
This policy is a direct attack from Donald Trump and Elon Musk on America’s seniors making it harder to get the benefits they’ve earned.
If Republicans ever try to move a bill through the Senate that shuts down the Department of Education, we will halt it in its tracks. It will go nowhere. It will be dead on arrival.
These people are clearly not up for the job.
The Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, CIA director, and more…
Just a stunning breach of military intelligence.
If you were up in arms over unsecure emails years ago, you should be outraged by this amateurish behavior.
Amateur behavior.
This kind of security breach is how people get killed.
How our enemies take advantage.
How our national security falls into danger.
These people are clearly not up for the job.
We need a full investigation into how this happened and the damage it created.
Today on this Medicaid Day of Action, I headed to Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx. It’s the only hospital in the Bronx providing comprehensive cancer services, and 2/3s of patients rely on Medicaid and Medicare.
Trump is trying to rip away this lifeline so he can give tax breaks to billionaires.
Trump, Musk, and DOGE would use the power of a shutdown to shift into overdrive.
And the courts, one of our best places to fight these autocrats, could quickly run out of money.
We can’t let this happen.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk want a shutdown to destroy vital government services faster.
It would be a disaster.
And we have to alert everyone how much pain it would cause the American people.
From my interview on @allinwithchris.bsky.social:
Trump and Musk would love a shutdown.
We must not give them one.
From me in @NYTimes.com:
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/o...
If we enter a shutdown, Congressional Republicans would weaponize their majorities to cherry-pick which parts of government to reopen.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History789 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
789 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-06 | — | 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) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-46) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (77-23) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-38) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-35) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (80-17) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (78-20) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-42) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-01-28 | H.R. 23 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-28 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (77-22) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (97-0) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (68-29) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-23) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-34) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-39) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (72-26) |
| 2025-01-22 | S. 6 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46) |
| 2025-01-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (99-0) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (64-35) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (75-24) |
| 2025-01-17 | S. 5 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-49) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (70-25) |
| 2025-01-13 | S. 5 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10) |
| 2025-01-09 | S. 5 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 3/5 majority required) |
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 16 / 16