Jeanne Shaheen headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
Born
January 28, 1947
Age 79
Phone
(202) 224-2841
Office
506 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Hampshire

Jeanne Shaheen

Cynthia Jeanne Shaheen is an American politician and former educator serving since 2009 as the senior United States senator from New Hampshire. A member of the Democratic Party, she served from 1997 to 2003 as the 78th governor of New Hampshire. Shaheen is the first woman elected both governor and a U.S. senator, and was the first female governor of New Hampshire.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 783
Yes41%
No55%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align86%
Cross-party14%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Jeanne Shaheen headshot
Jeanne Shaheen
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Hampshire
SoupScore
Jeanne's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 80 sponsored · 283 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Tariffs on Canada and Mexico will spike costs for families everywhere, making it harder to balance their budgets: ➕That’s ~$1,000 more in expenses per year for families ➕$150-$250 more for heating to stay warm each winter ➕Higher prices at the pump and in grocery stores
🗓️First, Trump has promised tariffs on our allies, Canada and Mexico—10% on energy from Canada and 25% on everything else. Today, he said these will go into effect next Tuesday. Whether they take effect next week or next month, they've already created panic and uncertainty.
We should be working to lower energy costs for folks across the country, but Trump’s actions to cut off funding for clean energy, halt energy efficiency programs and level tariffs on heating oil, propane and gasoline are going to do the exact opposite.
By blocking federal funding for good projects, President Trump is stiffing working Americans, small businesses and our communities. The American people elected Donald Trump to lower energy costs—instead he's actively doing the opposite and causing financial hardship.
Despite what Trump might have said, slashing Medicaid is on the table in the U.S. House.   All so that Republicans in Congress, Trump and Elon Musk can come up with trillions to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy in this country.
I’ve heard from far too many Granite Staters forced to ration their life-saving medications because costs are too high. It’s unacceptable. Our legislation would allow prescription drugs to be imported from pharmacies in Canada increasing competition and lowering costs.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau keeps scammers, fraudsters and predatory companies in check, protecting you and your hard-earned dollars. By dismantling CFPB, Trump and Elon Musk are protecting their billionaire friends and corporate insiders at your expense.
Last week, I offered an amendment to the Senate Republican budget resolution to prevent health care costs from skyrocketing for millions of Americans by extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Republicans voted it down.
One in seven Granite Staters get their health insurance through Medicaid, including nearly 100,000 children. This morning, I joined providers, advocates and Medicaid recipients to discuss how potential Republican-led cuts would hurt their lives and communities.
Let's be clear, what Trump promised was not that he was going to come in and indiscriminately fire people and cut services. He said he was going to lower the cost of everything from food to rent to energy costs. He hasn't done any of that.
Elon Musk is sowing more confusion with his latest email over the weekend to federal employees. Trump's administration has done nothing but create uncertainty and chaos at every level of our government. Why aren't they focusing on lowering costs?
Federal workers are getting emails asking them to explain the work they did last week. Elon Musk says not responding "will be taken as a resignation."
Too many Americans are struggling with the cost of living—and what is President Trump doing? Proposing tariffs that would raise prices on everyday items Halting federal funding that families rely on Firing employees who live and work in our communities www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/e...
Firing 1,000s of VA employees, many of whom are veterans themselves, is unacceptable. This will only make it harder for our veterans to access care. We should put veterans first, which is why I joined my colleagues in calling for the VA to reverse these mass terminations.
Elon Musk's indiscriminate effort to fire critical federal employees isn't based on expertise or experience.   At a time when accidents in our skies have been increasing, they fired hundreds of FAA employees—folks that we need to keep Americans safe.
Giving tax cuts to the wealthiest while gutting programs families rely on—that’s the Republican plan. Democrats just tried to pass an amendment that would prevent a tax cut for those earning more than one billion dollars. Senate Republicans blocked it.
To best support law enforcement and keep our nation safe, it's critical the FBI remains independent of political interference. Kash Patel has made clear his priority will be retribution over the good of the American people. I voted no on his confirmation to be FBI Director.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
783 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-09-29S. 2806 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-29Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-09-29End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-45)
2025-09-19Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (47-43)
2025-09-19End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (47-45)
2025-09-19H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-19S. 2882 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-09-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-09-17Decision 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 PN55-25YESYESDecision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52)
2025-09-17Motion 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 PN25-28NONOMotion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47)
2025-09-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-16S. Con. Res. 22 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Rejected (36-62)
2025-09-16S.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-51)
2025-09-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-47)
2025-09-15End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-44)
2025-09-15S. Res. 377 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (51-44)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377YESYESDecision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377NONOMotion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-10S. 2296 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-49)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-09-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-09-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-09-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-43)
2025-09-04S. 2296 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13)
2025-09-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-02S. 2296 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (71-23)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNomination Confirmed (72-22)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (59-35)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (52-42)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (78-17)
2025-08-02End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (76-19)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-08-02End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-41)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)

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.

← PrevPage 6 / 16Next →