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.

I’ve spent years fighting for better postal service for all Minnesotans, especially in the most rural places. This will hurt every single one of us.
Any Republicans want to grow a spine and stand up to this with us? Many of you represent rural areas who will suffer the most from this!
🚨 Big News 🚨 

Trump plans to fire the USPS governing board, merge the Postal Service into the Commerce Dept. 

It would disrupt 55 years of non-political mail service, and threatens to upend trillions of dollars of ecommerce and the 250 year-old US mail system.
Reposted byTina Smith
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.
Bottom line: Abortion bans are cruel. And women in this country are being harmed by them every day.   Denying women life-saving care shouldn't happen - and yes, abortions can be life-saving care.
NEW: Texas Banned Abortion. Then Sepsis Rates Soared. ProPublica’s first-of-its-kind analysis is the most detailed look yet into a rise in life-threatening complications for women experiencing pregnancy loss under Texas’ abortion ban.
Republicans are trying to pass a measure in the dark of night to screw over working people so they can send a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires and big corporations. We won’t let them do it without a fight.
Trump and Musk have fired Minnesotans like: -- Park Rangers at Voyageurs -- Fire protection engineers -- Workers who care for our veterans -- Workers who care for folks with disabilities -- Workers who dole out small business loans How does this help anyone?
A Minnesotan who worked for the federal government was fired, rehired and then fired again within a span of two weeks.
Just because DOGE doesn’t agree with a policy doesn’t make it fraud or waste. What they’re really talking about is cutting your benefits.
He said he wasn't going to meddle with American's health care and now he's (unsurprisingly) going back on his word. Making it harder to see your doctor and pay your medical bills so he can give a massive tax break to billionaires and corporations. That’s what this is about.
Post from Adam Cancryn on Twitter saying the White House opens the door to changes to Medicare and Medicaid as long as the policies are deemed to address “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
I stand with National Parks Service staff like Kate, a Minnesotan who was fired by Trump and Musk from her job as Park Ranger at Voyageurs National Park.
Kate Severson, a federal park ranger at Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota. Severson was one of the thousands of newly-hired federal workers to be abruptly fired Friday, February 14, 2025, as part of the Trump administrations push to downsize the federal government.
Can’t post my Instagram videos on Bluesky because of their 60s time limit, but I thought I’d just share this short outtake. I love my job, and these hard fights are worth having… but man are they hard.
Minnesota student just told me that her dad, who has worked for a Minnesota VA hospital for nearly a decade, recently got a new job within the agency. They listed him as “probationary” and he was just fired by Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
People don’t give a shit if it's one or two bills. They care that Republicans are hellbent on cutting the *$6 per day* families get in nutrition assistance and the Medicaid benefits millions of working families rely on to see a doctor. And for what? To pay for more tax cuts for giant corporations.
We're going to fight this. Even if we can’t stop it, we sure can make it painful by making sure everyone knows this is a giant grift.
The American people don't care if it's one bill or two. They care that both versions have the same goal: Cutting their benefits while billionaire corporations make a(nother) fortune from their tax cuts.
Reposted byTina Smith
I just voted NO to advance Senate Republican's pro-billionaire, anti-middle class budget blueprint. They want to let Elon cut $1 trillion this year alone—those cuts are coming out of SNAP, Medicaid, VA benefits, & more. Money out of YOUR pocket so BILLIONAIRES get more tax breaks.
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
2025-05-08S. 1582 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-49, 3/5 majority required)
2025-05-08H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Approve resolutionNOT_VOTINGNOJoint Resolution Passed (50-43)
2025-05-08S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Approve resolutionNOT_VOTINGNOJoint Resolution Passed (50-38)
2025-05-07S.J. Res. 13 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-47)
2025-05-06H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-06S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-05-06S.J. Res. 13 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2025-05-06H.J. Res. 61 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (55-45)
2025-05-05H.J. Res. 61 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-43)
2025-05-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-05-01S.J. Res. 31 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-46)
2025-05-01H.J. Res. 75 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-45)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 31 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-40)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 49 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (49-49, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 49 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Defeated (49-49)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 75 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-46)
2025-04-29H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNOYESNomination Confirmed (83-14)
2025-04-29End debateNOYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-13)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-36)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-36)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-39)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (67-29)
2025-04-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (64-27)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-25)
2025-04-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-25)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-26)
2025-04-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-25)
2025-04-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-46)
2025-04-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-10H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-44)
2025-04-09H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-42)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-37)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-04-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-32)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-04-07End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-39)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)

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 14 / 18Next →