And feed Trump’s longstanding obsession with Representative Omar.
Minnesota won’t stand for it.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Minnesota
Tina Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 915
Yes27%
No68%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
Tina Smith
U.S. SenatorDemocratMinnesota
SoupScore
Tina's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 49 sponsored · 331 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
This is their corrupt playbook: Use all the powers of the federal government to attack our leaders. Deploy an out of control, violent federal police force to invade our communities and kill and injure Minnesotans. Launch baseless and hateful attacks on the Somali community.
I’m outraged by this attack on Representative Omar. Trump and his DOJ have a bizarre obsession with tearing down Minnesota, our leaders and our communities. This latest action, even as voting has already started in Minnesota, is a transparent attempt to interfere in our elections.
Honoring your sovereignty and upholding our government-to-government relationships is central to my responsibilities as Senator, and I look forward to standing with you long into the future.
On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, I want to say Pidamayaye and Miigwech to Tribal Nations and Native communities in Minnesota and beyond for your partnership and friendship over the years.
And to rub salt in the wound, these tech companies are forcing local officials on city councils or county boards to sign NDA’s so they can’t even tell their own constituents what’s going on. No wonder Minnesotans don’t trust these guys.
Data centers epitomize the power Big Tech has over communities. People point to these buildings as proof that Big Tech plays by a different set of rules, and get pissed that data centers are built over the objections of the people who live around them (often with taxpayer $$)
You build a product that will harm people and put them out of work? Then your company has to face the consequences when that harm happens.
AI companies love to claim they’re SO special they need special treatment and can’t follow the same rules other dangerous technologies are bound by, and that’s just bullshit.
Incredibly grateful for our state and federal law enforcement partners who were able to foil this terrorist plot at the Mall of America before it could take place.
These companies were going to build most of these data centers regardless of the tax incentives, so we should question the fiscal rationale of these incentives. It also sounds ripe for corruption, considering these companies routinely donate millions to the President’s campaigns.
Reports are swirling around that tech companies are cashing in on corporate tax breaks from the Big Beautiful Bill to bankroll massive data centers. So I am requesting Congress’s official tax estimators provide a full report on just how much money Republicans shelled out to these corporations.
They spend all this time and money defending Richard Nixon but can’t prosecute the men in the Epstein Files?
They’ll probably ship our minerals to China, where Antofagasta has a sweetheart deal. Meanwhile, we likely lose some of our most precious public lands.
Even their own ridiculous AI bot understands why a copper-nickel mine doesn’t belong near the Boundary Waters
People on both sides of the aisle have good ideas and substantive, bipartisan bills to hold these companies accountable when they cause harm. President Trump is what stands in the way.
You’re telling me the guy who said “LET DATA REIGN” just poured cold water on the only bipartisan AI safety talks that seem promising?
🟡 NEW: The Senate’s bipartisan AI safety talks are at a standstill now, and there will be no committee action before the election.
www.semafor.com/article/09/2...
Senator Klobuchar and I will work to see if there’s any support we can secure from the federal government.
New Richland endured nine inches of rain from just one storm, flooding the town and forcing residents to evacuate. The anxiety from residents is palpable. It’s going to take an all-hands-on-deck effort to recover, clean up the damage and get the community back on its feet.
Thank you to Brent and Jane for welcoming me to your farm, and to all the farmers who took the time to share what’s happening in Minnesota. I am grateful for this chance to listen and promise to bring your stories back with me to Washington.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History915 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
915 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (47-41) |
| 2026-09-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-09-30 | H.R. 9340 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (57-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-09-30 | H.R. 7008 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-09-29 | S. Res. 852 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.Res. 852 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-51) |
| 2026-09-29 | S.J. Res. 197 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-51) |
| 2026-09-28 | S. 4668 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (77-22) |
| 2026-09-28 | S. 4668 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-09-28 | S. 4668 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-09-28 | S. 4668 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (42-54, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-09-28 | S. 4668 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (1-94) |
| 2026-09-28 | S. 4668 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (96-1) |
| 2026-09-24 | H. Con. Res. 89 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-09-24 | S. 4668 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (74-25, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-09-24 | S. 4668 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (77-23) |
| 2026-09-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2026-09-22 | S. 4668 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (70-21, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-09-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-43) |
| 2026-09-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-45) |
| 2026-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2026-09-17 | S. 4668 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (77-22) |
| 2026-09-15 | S. 4668 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (74-24, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-09-15 | H.R. 3633 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2026-09-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-46) |
| 2026-08-08 | S. 5271 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-49) |
| 2026-08-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-49) |
| 2026-08-08 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (90-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-08 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (61-32) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (91-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-07 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (86-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (32-64) |
| 2026-08-05 | S.J. Res. 187 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-08-05 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-08-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2026-08-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2026-08-03 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (89-4, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-30 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-07-30 | S.J. Res. 181 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 181 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-07-30 | S.J. Res. 199 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-07-29 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-07-29 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-12) |
| 2026-07-28 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (86-12, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2026-07-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2026-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2026-07-23 | S.J. Res. 180 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 180 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-49) |
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.
Page 1 / 19Next →