PolicySoupstir the potALPHA

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

SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes27%
No69%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
BlueskyFacebookInstagram
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
U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen@shaheen.senate.govFeb 21(source)
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 21(source)
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.
Charles Ornstein
@charlesornstein.bsky.social
Open post ↗
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 20(source)
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 20(source)
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?
Minnesota Star Tribune
@startribune.com
Open post ↗
A Minnesotan who worked for the federal government was fired, rehired and then fired again within a span of two weeks.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 20(source)
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 20(source)
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.”
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 20(source)
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 19(source)
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 19(source)
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 19(source)
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.
Trump endorses House budget plan amid competing proposals in Congress
President Trump endorsed the House Republicans' budget proposal to begin enacting his agenda as the Senate pursues a competing plan.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 19(source)
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.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 19(source)
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
Senator Patty Murray@murray.senate.govFeb 19(source)
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.
Reposted byTina Smith
Elizabeth Warren@warren.senate.govFeb 18(source)
Republicans are racing forward with a budget that will raise costs for working families. People will pay more for food, health care, education, and child care – while Republicans plot more tax cuts for billionaires.
Tina Smith@smith.senate.govFeb 18(source)
Just got this email from a Minnesota producer. These freezes hurt real people, including our farmers. Republicans need to stand up to Musk, but they won't - they want to see all this money vacuumed up so they can give it to big corporations in the form of tax breaks.
Screenshot of an email that reads: This suspension will drastically hurt our farming operation making it harder for us to provide food to the community or have to shut down. Trump promised farmers would NOT be hurt. I voted Trump but now is executive order reviewing funding is HURTING us farmers. When will this USDA farm funding be unfrozen? Please help us farmers get these programs unfrozen. Farmers help put food on table for you and for all!!
← Newer postsPosts page 61Older posts →
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
2025-10-01S. Res. 412 (119th)End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-10-01—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-10-01—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-10-01H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONO✓Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-01S. 2882 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYES✓Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-30H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONO✓Bill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-30S. 2882 (119th)Final passageYESYES✓Bill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-29S. 2806 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONO✓Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-29—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-09-29—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45)
2025-09-19—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (47-43)
2025-09-19—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45)
2025-09-19H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONO✓Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-19S. 2882 (119th)Final passageYESYES✓Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-18—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-09-17—End debateNONO✓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 PN55-25YESYES✓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 PN25-28NONO✓Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47)
2025-09-17—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-16S. Con. Res. 22 (119th)Begin considerationNONO✓Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62)
2025-09-16S.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationYESYES✓Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51)
2025-09-15—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (48-47)
2025-09-15—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44)
2025-09-15S. Res. 377 (119th)Approve resolutionNONO✓Resolution Agreed to (51-44)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377YESYES✓Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377NONO✓Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-10S. 2296 (119th)Kill the motionNONO✓Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Begin considerationNONO✓Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Kill the motionNONO✓Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-09—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-09-09—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-09-09—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-09-09—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-09-09—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-09-08—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (50-43)
2025-09-04S. 2296 (119th)Begin considerationNOYES✕Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13)
2025-09-04—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-04—End debateNONO✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-02S. 2296 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNOYES✕Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-02—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (71-23)
2025-08-02—Confirm nomineeNO——Nomination Confirmed (72-22)
2025-08-02—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (59-35)
2025-08-02—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (52-42)
2025-08-02—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-02—Confirm nomineeYESYES✓Nomination Confirmed (78-17)
2025-08-02—End debateYESYES✓Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-19)
2025-08-02—Confirm nomineeNONO✓Nomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-02—End debateNONO✓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.

← PrevPage 8 / 18Next →