More than half of the civilian employees at Pease are emergency personnel and air traffic controllers.
Proposed cuts could devastate the important role they play in supporting emergency services in the region, including at Portsmouth International Airport.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Hampshire
Jeanne Shaheen
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes42%
No54%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align86%
Cross-party14%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Jeanne Shaheen
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Hampshire
SoupScore
Jeanne's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 97 sponsored · 327 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Prices are already too high. That's why Granite Staters and every business I visit are concerned about President Trump's tariffs.
No matter what happens with the administration's supposed trade "deals," the uncertainty is already causing pain for American families.
When small businesses thrive, local and state economies all benefit. That's why I've introduced a bill that would help American small businesses weather President Trump's chaotic trade war by exempting them from the sweeping tariffs imposed on Canadian products. www.wmur.com/article/shah...
Greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. We’re seeing more devastating floods, expansion of tickborne diseases and increasingly catastrophic wildfires. If this Administration succeeds, our air will be dirtier and natural disasters will be more common and more costly.
For Granite Staters like Jen, Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits are a lifeline and life-saving.
Without them, Jen wouldn't have been able to afford her chemotherapy treatments after she lost her job and health coverage.
We can't let these tax credits expire.
Secretary Bessent is saying the quiet part out loud by admitting that the Trump admin is seeking a "backdoor for privatizing Social Security."
They're already ripping health care away from millions on Medicaid and now they've made it clear that your social security is next.
If Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits expire, 4 million Americans will lose their health care and 20 million more will see costs skyrocket at a time when prices are already high.
The clock is ticking. We need to take action now to extend these credits.
On the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, we should be celebrating the success of these programs in helping Americans access and afford health care. Instead, we're facing Republican cuts that will raise costs and rip health care away from 15 million people. It's shameful.
Good news: Three of my commonsense bills to lower housing costs and improve affordable housing, especially in rural communities, cleared a key hurdle in the Senate and are moving forward with bipartisan support.
New Hampshire is facing a significant shortage of quality, affordable housing and Granite Staters are paying the price.
We need to pursue every avenue available to build new housing and lower costs.
If the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits are allowed to expire in January, 4.2 million Americans will lose their health care coverage and 20 million more will face a 75% price hike.
My Health Care Affordability Act would prevent this disaster.
Trump’s trade ‘deal’ with the EU still forces Americans to pay a tax rate that is 10 times what they paid before the President’s trade war. It's hardworking American families and businesses—not Europeans—who will pay the price.
My full statement ⬇️
www.shaheen.senate.gov/shaheen-stat...
I held a roundtable with hospital leaders in Manchester to hear more about the impact of Trump’s Big Beautiful Betrayal. Federal funding cuts are going to make it even harder for providers deliver affordable health care in New Hampshire.
President Trump’s tariffs are not only raising costs for families but also threatening businesses that provide good-paying jobs in our communities.
At Brueckner Group in Dover, I heard firsthand about how hard it is to plan for the future when Trump's tariff plans are constantly in flux.
Trump continues to talk about combating waste, fraud and abuse, yet the State Deptment is planning to incinerate $10 million worth of commodities—which were already paid for.
My new legislation with @schatz.bsky.social would prevent this type of wasteful destruction of lifesaving supplies.
The $10 million worth of commodities that the Trump Administration is planning to destroy are family planning supplies. They have absolutely nothing to do with abortions.
This Administration's "reasoning" for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars isn't an explanation, it's an excuse.
The Trump Administration is planning to burn $10 million worth of lifesaving family planning commodities, despite the fact that these supplies have already been paid for by the American taxpayer and they are nowhere near their expiration date.
This isn't just wasteful, it's cruel.
Tariffs are taxes.
They're paid by American consumers, and they increase prices on everyday goods.
President Trump and Congressional Republicans are bragging about American families paying more and having less money in their pockets.
As the substance use epidemic evolves, so must our response. That’s why I introduced a bipartisan bill to help keep our kids safe by requiring social media companies to report illicit drug activity on their platforms and work with law enforcement to stop it.
President Trump's tariffs are increasing prices on everyday goods and making it harder for Granite State businesses and working families to get by.
Our new bipartisan bill would shield small businesses from President Trump's trade war and give Main Street some much-needed relief and certainty.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-01 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-10-01 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | S. 2806 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (47-43) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-19 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-16 | S. Con. Res. 22 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62) |
| 2025-09-16 | S.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2025-09-15 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-10 | S. 2296 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-09-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-43) |
| 2025-09-04 | S. 2296 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-02 | S. 2296 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-23) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | — | — | Nomination Confirmed (72-22) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-35) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (52-42) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (78-17) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-19) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
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.