Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Rhode Island
Born
October 20, 1955
Age 70
Phone
(202) 224-2921
Office
530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island

Sheldon Whitehouse

Voting Record — 890
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 96 sponsored · 259 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

It’s simpler: blocking low-cost clean energy diverts electric grids to more expensive fossil plants, raising costs but driving billions of dollars from consumers’ pockets to Trump’s big corrupt fossil fuel donors. www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/edit...
Sen. Whitehouse: You're dealing with, for the first time ever, I believe, in the history of the Department of Justice, a credible finding that there may have been a fraud on the court perpetrated by the Department of Justice at the highest levels. I mean, that's unthinkable stuff, as you know.
Wow. Iran gets sanctions relief, the release of frozen funds, the ability to export oil, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. The U.S. gets a reiteration of the vague promise Iran won’t develop a nuke. Hard to imagine a more thorough capitulation.
Obviously, they want to avoid discussing their sleazy Trump deal under oath, particularly in front of a judge who can sanction and discipline them. But it’s a rough look to hide behind Trump’s private lawyers rather than respond, and there’s every reason to believe the judge will notice.
Remember: I know of no time in history when senior DOJ officials were accused of “fraud on the court.” Unthinkable. And they don’t even answer, but hide like rats? Not a good sign for the MAGA DOJ or for its sleazy top officials.
Here’s what’s interesting. The judge in her order invited a response into (a) whether DOJ policies were violated; (b) whether the parties colluded and deceived the court; and (c) the client (IRS’s) defense memo. DOJ’s silence is really deafening here, in the wake of that.
Yesterday went by, and the MAGA DOJ/IRS filed nothing to defend the Trump slush fund/tax amnesty “settlement” in the Trump versus Trump case, hiding behind Trump lawyers’ bare-bones denial. Now on to further proceedings. Next filing in a week by the retired judges.
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
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-41)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (81-15)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (21-75)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (15-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (14-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (45-50)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (42-53)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (44-51)
2025-08-01Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114)YESYESMotion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-41)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-41)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-38)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 34 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (24-73)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 41 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (27-70)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-07-30End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)

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 9 / 18Next →