Tina Smith headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Minnesota
Born
1958
Age 68
Phone
(202) 224-5641
Office
720 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Minnesota

Tina Smith

Voting Record — 890
Yes27%
No69%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Tina Smith headshot
Tina Smith
U.S. SenatorDemocratMinnesota
SoupScore
Tina's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 44 sponsored · 315 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Reposted byTina Smith
Millions of Americans need help finding shelter and keeping it. The Trump administration is withholding $3.5 billion in approved funding from folks who need it most. @smith.senate.gov and I are urging HUD to distribute those funds now.
Not to ruin everyone’s day, but don’t forget in the midst of this ‘CR’ chaos that they’re also trying to install a snake oil salesman (Dr. Oz) as head of Medicare and Medicaid. Finance Committee questions him today.
Trump and Republicans set this up as an unprecedented power grab so they can slash and burn government services on their terms. I’m a firm NO — on cloture and final passage — on this ‘CR’
Project 2025 says fire federal workers, so they are. Project 2025 says abolish the Department of Education, so they are. Project 2025 says kick moms and babies off Medicaid, so they are.   Project 2025 calls for a national abortion ban using the Comstock Act… see where I’m going with this?
Doesn’t take a detective to uncover that Republicans are enacting Project 2025 – just last night they began dismantling the Dept. of Education. Everything points to them misusing the Comstock Act to ban abortion even in states where it’s legal. Today, I’m re-introducing a bill to stop them.
Text: This is what Heritage thinks a GOP president should do, as aid out in Project 2025: reviving the nineteenth-century Comstock Act as a federal (abortion) ban.
Reposted byTina Smith
Don’t tell me that Trump/Musk are not trying to destroy Social Security. 30,000 people died last year while waiting to get their benefits. Under this new policy, those numbers will skyrocket. We can’t kill seniors so that billionaires get their tax breaks.
Nothing to see here this is totally normal and happens all the time and isn’t weird at all and doesn’t signal any sort of corruption
Headline: Musk Seeks to Out $100 Million Directly Into Trump Political Operation
Headline: Trump selects a new Tesla on White House Driveway to show support for Elon Musk
Taking health care from moms and babies just doesn’t produce quite enough money to shell out to corporations and billionaires, so he simply MUST dip his paws into grandma and grandpa’s Social Security too.   The rich can never be too rich right?
Elon Musk reiterated his intention to destroy programs like Social Security, which he has called a Ponzi scheme: "Most of the federal spending is entitlements... that’s the big one to eliminate."
They’re doing their job because they love our public lands and want all of us to enjoy them. Not waste. Not fraud. But this is definitely abuse to our NPS workers.
Park Rangers often uproot their lives and move their families to some of the most remote areas in our country, and this is how we repay them? If you’ve ever met a Ranger (which I’m guessing Elon never has) you know they aren’t doing it because that’s where the money’s at.
Your platform suffers a massive cyberattack but sure, definitely take the time to “own the libs” instead of getting your own house in order. Makes sense. Very *efficient* use of your time, Elon.
“You are a traitor.” An absurd and insulting thing to say to anyone who posts what Senator Kelly did. And even more insulting since he served as a U.S. Navy captain and a NASA astronaut. Kelly was a combat pilot and flew 39 combat missions during Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War.
Alt-Text:
A screenshot of a post on X (formerly Twitter) by Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) and a reply from Elon Musk (@elonmusk). Senator Mark Kelly’s post reads:

“Just left Ukraine. What I saw proved to me we can’t give up on the Ukrainian people. Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine’s security and can’t be a giveaway to Putin. Let me tell you about my trip and why it’s important we stand with Ukraine.”

The post includes a photograph of a rusted, damaged tank covered in graffiti, parked in a public square. People are walking around the area, and a man wearing a camouflage cap and a brown jacket stands next to the tank. In the background, there is a yellow building with a blue roof and a sign that says “Mariupol.”

Elon Musk’s reply to the post says:
“You are a traitor.”
Trump During SOTU: We are going to build the healthiest and most vital communities anywhere in the world. Trump Earlier That Day: Doctors only have to save a pregnant woman’s life in *some* states.
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE AIRLIFTED TO OTHER STATES TO OBTAIN HEALTH CARE THAT WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE!
BREAKING: Trump is dropping the EMTALA case it inherited from Biden — a battle with Idaho over patients' right to have an abortion in a medical emergency. An Idaho hospital warns women in crisis will once again be airlifted out of the state if courts don't act soon. www.politico.com/news/2025/03...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
890 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
2025-02-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-28)
2025-02-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-43)
2025-02-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (66-28)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-21Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (24-76)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-21Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-49)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-02-20Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-49)
2025-02-20End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-02-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-02-18S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47)
2025-02-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-02-18Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45)
2025-02-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-43)
2025-02-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-02-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (72-28)
2025-02-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2025-02-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2025-02-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)

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 17 / 18Next →