IMO, another big fat Trumpian favor for the fossil fuel industry.
Maybe paired with our excess profits clawback bill this makes sense, but not while they’re busy gorging themselves at the public’s expense.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party4%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 90 sponsored · 238 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Americans wanted prices to come down. Then, Trump started an unnecessary war with Iran that has killed U.S. servicemembers and is driving prices even higher. How much more pain is he willing to inflict on the American people? apnews.com/article/us-i...
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
A ballroom he promised taxpayers wouldn't pay for.
A wall he promised Mexico would.
And now a no-bid contract for a favored pool contractor costing taxpayers millions more.
Trump's art of the deal is, and always will be, a scam.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Help with daycare? Too expensive.
Healthcare you can afford? Nope.
But paying his friend millions of taxpayer dollars to paint the bottom of the Reflecting Pool? Absolutely.
The corruption never ends.
The cost to repaint the Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC blue is now estimated to be over $13 million.
Trump initially promised it would cost only $1.8 million.
www.nytimes.com/2026/05/11/u...
(10) When the reckoning comes (and it will), our sleeping watchmen will be less culpable than the creeping burglars, but not without sin. It matters to speak up now about this massive enterprise of climate denial fraud and dark money corruption.
(9) While they were at it, the fossil-fuel billionaires packed and captured the Supreme Court, so that its every regulatory decision helps the polluters and their “free-to-pollute” business model. Look no further than the leaked Clean Power Plan memos ONLY considering polluter costs.
(8) On our side, we have almost no infrastructure to track and expose that armada. The creepy front groups are played like piano keys, and most people don’t even see there’s a piano.
(7) A massive creepy bestiary of influence has emerged to prey on us: superPACs, twinned 501c3s/501c4s, identity-launderers like Donors Trust, captive business groups like the Chamber and NAM — a corrupting armada of literally hundreds of front groups.
(6) But those of us in politics sure do. Bipartisanship on climate, common beforehand, was killed dead by the 2010 Citizens United decision when it unleashed all that fossil fuel dark money. Politics has never been the same.
(5) An unjustified subsidy that big creates a massive motive to meddle in politics. If fossil fuel spends $70 billion a year on corrupt political influence, it’s still a 10-1 payback on their investment. You don't see it all because so much is hidden “dark money.”
(4) If that subsidy weren’t protected by politics, it would create a big incentive for products to reduce the harm. A $100/ton pollution fee creates a $99/ton incentive to innovate and reduce the harm. The “free-to-pollute” subsidy kills that incentive.
(3) As a subsidy, this is a big one: the International Monetary Fund pegs it north of $700 billion per year, just in the United States. That means $700 billion in harm annually we all have to absorb.
(2) “Pollute-for-free” has no economic, moral or environmental justification. Even Milton Friedman taught that “negative externalities” like pollution need to be in the price of the product, or it’s a subsidy.
Let’s remember: (1) the fossil fuel industry is desperate to pollute for free; if they can’t pollute for free, their business model collapses.
🧵
Shared this thread with a friend in the investment space (no greenie!), and here’s what he had to say:
“In ten years, no one will buy a house without thinking about climate change-induced risks and costs … It is a future that is rapidly coming into focus.”
Exactly.
They’re used to false facts. How about Citizens United’s “no need to worry about corruption, all the political money we just released is going to be transparent: you’ll know who the donors are”?
And, of course, then they lied about it (lying to Congress is SOP for Trumpsters):
Trump’s bogus FEMA in action: www.politico.com/news/2026/05...
Happy Mother’s Day! 💐
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History851 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
851 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-26 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-34) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-47) |
| 2026-02-11 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-02-10 | S.J. Res. 95 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2026-02-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-02-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (58-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (54-40) |
| 2026-02-02 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Final passage | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Bill Passed (71-29, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 4287) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (67-33) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (32-67) |
| 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 | NO | 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 | YES | 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 | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-42) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | 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) | Approve resolution | 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 | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
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.