There is NOTHING ‘America First’ about selling out some of our most pristine waters so a Chilean mining company can come in, take our minerals, ship them to China for processing, then sell them off.
All while polluting the Boundary Waters in the process.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Minnesota
Tina Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes24%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Tina Smith
U.S. SenatorDemocratMinnesota
SoupScore
Tina's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 35 sponsored · 278 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted byTina Smith
Republicans in the U.S. Senate are coming for your public lands once again.
Reposted byTina Smith
My son in the Boundary Waters. This is what’s under attack by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress. Channel your inner Teddy Roosevelt and call your Senators!
This Administration’s attacks on Minnesota continue, this time by threatening to allow copper-sulfide mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters when a majority of Minnesotans have made it clear they don't want this mine.
Not this mine. Not this place. Keep public lands in public hands.
“The first of several students detained by immigration officers...” shouldn’t even be a sentence
“The first of several students detained by immigration officers...” shouldn’t even be a sentence
Rhetoric didn’t kill Renee Good or Alex Pretti. An unaccountable federal police force did.
Reposted byTina Smith
Homan says that 2,000+ DHS immigration enforcement agents will be left in Minnesota even after the drawdown he announced this morning
A first step, sure. But there’s usually only 150 in the entire state. This drawdown means there will still be around 2,300 (15x the normal amount) unaccountable federal agents roaming our streets.
ICE detained multiple kids (all under the age of 10!) in the last week alone. Still kidnapping people based solely on the way they look. Still arresting parents at school pick up.
Nothing has changed in Minnesota. Nice words from the Admin won’t change that. ICE leaving will.
Bovino needs to go.
Noem needs to go.
Miller needs to go.
But firing or impeaching any of these people will not unilaterally change what’s happening in Minnesota. That’s why Congress needs to exert some muscle over DHS/ICE funding.
Reposted byTina Smith
In @nytopinion.nytimes.com
“We need to rip ICE down to the studs and start over,” Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota writes. “In the wake of this catastrophe, there is no reason we can’t come up with a way of enforcing our laws that doesn’t trample on our values and our Constitution.”
People are still being profiled.
People are still being wrongfully detained.
People still can’t go to work or school out of fear.
Do not look away and do not buy any political spin coming out of DHS.
ICE OUT OF MINNESOTA.
Predicting that this week we’ll hear more conciliatory words from the Administration regarding Minnesota (since they’re starting to realize that ICE has become politically toxic) but everyone outside of Minnesota needs to know that nothing on the ground has changed.
Thank you @joaquincastrotx.bsky.social
for bringing Liam back to his friends and families.
He endured more than any 5-year-old ever should. Now more than ever, we need to get ICE out of Minnesota.
ICE needs to be ripped down to the studs. We need to start over and hold this Administration accountable for this mess.
Nothing has changed. Minnesota is still suffering and sending in a new guy to run ICE won’t change that – but Congress can.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 140 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | 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.
Page 1 / 16Next →