I voted “NO” on tonight’s budget proposal. The fight for health care continues.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Georgia
Raphael G. Warnock
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes32%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align94%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Raphael G. Warnock
U.S. SenatorDemocratGeorgia
SoupScore
Raphael G.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 25 sponsored · 165 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The budget that Republicans in Washington have put forward essentially SLASHES Obamacare by letting health care funding expire.
At the same time, it continues massive tax cuts for the rich.
Rs think billionaire tax cuts > money for your health care.
This admin is absolutely dedicated to the noble cause of taking food away from hungry people. They’re working overtime. They’re fighting tooth and nail. They’re going above and beyond. Using your taxpayer dollars to advance their mission of stealing more from working people.
I am fighting to stop health care premiums from doubling.
Republicans in DC are fighting to CUT health care spending so that they can give tax breaks to corporations and their ultra-rich donors.
I want to be clear about what’s happening in DC right now.
Republicans in Congress are holding the entire country hostage in order to fulfill their partisan agenda of cutting Obamacare.
It’s regular people who pay the price for these reckless cuts and partisan games.
The Trump administration has spent the last several days begging court after court not to force them to feed hungry families and children! Who are these people???
If a judge orders you to release funds for hungry children and you continue to fight it, it’s time to take a step back and re-evaluate how you got there. No political leverage is worth corrupting your soul.
Courts have ruled MULTIPLE times that the Trump admin must fully fund SNAP, yet they’re still trying to fight it in court. They’re using your tax dollars to try and starve hungry children.
It’s deeply disturbing that the Trump admin continues to fight court orders to fund SNAP. They want hungry people to starve under some twisted logic that this gives them political leverage. It’s sick.
A judge has once again ruled that the Trump administration must release the SNAP benefits that they have been withholding in FULL. I’m calling on President Trump to obey the court order immediately and stop using hungry families as political pawns.
I don’t think middle-class families should be paying THOUSANDS of dollars more per year for health insurance. Why is that so controversial?
I’d be happy to work across the aisle with ANYONE who wants to get serious about fixing our health care system.
But we’re facing down a health care emergency that has real consequences for people right now. Extend the subsidies and my door is open.
Who are Republicans in DC fighting for? They’d rather shut it all down than spend money on helping middle-class families with ridiculous insurance premiums.
Keep in mind: This is happening just months after they spent trillions on tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Where is the plan? Republicans in DC have been talking about a forthcoming plan to fix health care for decades! Nothing has ever materialized except various attempts to take health care AWAY from people in order to cut taxes for the rich.
This is a new low. We just learned that the President is once again REFUSING to fund SNAP despite a court order to do so.
He’s literally holding hungry children hostage to gain political leverage. It's craven and deeply immoral.
Today is Election Day. There are statewide and local elections happening in Georgia so get out and vote!
First this admin decided to withhold SNAP all together. Now, they're trying to get away with partial payments. Stop playing political games with people's food. Leave hungry families out of it.
I visited Goodr this morning, a grocery store for low-income families in ATL. The bottom line is people are struggling to afford food in this economy. This admin needs to stop dragging hungry families into their political games. There are real consequences for real people.
Republicans in DC are demanding that I vote for a budget bill that fails to fund health care. I’m happy to work across the aisle to fund the government. But I can’t vote for a budget that does nothing about our health care crisis.
We’re staring down a health care crisis in this country. It’s real and it’s happening right now. Premiums are skyrocketing for millions. The time to fix it is NOW.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-29 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-55, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-27 | S. 3627 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (82-15) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (85-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-14 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 98 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2026-01-13 | S.J. Res. 84 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-01-12 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (80-13, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-40) |
| 2026-01-08 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 98 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-01-07 | S.J. Res. 86 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (43-50) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-01-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (50-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-42) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-36) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 82 | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (50-50) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (69-27) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. 1071 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (77-20) |
| 2025-12-15 | S. 1071 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-20, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 1071 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (75-22) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Resolution S.Res. 532 | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3385 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3386 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-10 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-12-10 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-49) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-12-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-32) |
| 2025-12-04 | S. Res. 520 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-04 | H.J. Res. 131 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 131 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-45) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-34) |
| 2025-12-03 | S.J. Res. 91 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-41) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-40) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (60-39) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-36) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-12-01 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-41) |
| 2025-11-20 | H.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 130 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-43) |
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.