Start by recalling that fraud on the court is really bad — worse than contempt; so bad that from our research no senior DOJ official in history has ever been accused of it, let alone subjected to a judicial inquiry. That fraud question remains pending in the court.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 885
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
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 · 96 sponsored · 257 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Interestinger and interestinger: Remember the Florida federal court inquiry into whether the crooked slush fund and sleazy Trump family tax fraud amnesty deal was a “fraud on the court”? Major development down there!
🧵
The $1.776 billion Trump “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is dead! Whoopee!!
Wait . . . . how long ‘til we see a $1.9 billion “Trump Justice Fund”? Or a special drive-up window for MAGA Federal Tort Claims Act claimants?
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Trump’s illegal war in Iran is a gift to his Big Oil friends who bankrolled his campaign with the promise of raking in profits.
Turns out it's the one promise he actually delivered on.
Meanwhile, Americans are paying over $4 per gallon at the gas pump and suffering from rising energy costs.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
This supposed 'deal' doesn't prevent payouts to violent insurrectionists in the future.
It doesn't prevent the admin from bringing the slush fund back from the dead next week or using DOJ’s Judgment Fund for the same illicit purpose.
The Great Climate Insurance Collapse is beginning before our eyes. How does it happen? Gradually, and then all at once. Buckle up.
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eene...
I’m no fan of Comey, but as of today a search for “8647” on Amazon shows 923 items. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
A decent industry would say, “this was money we didn’t earn, it’s a windfall we get from our cartel pricing scheme.” Not these corrupt, greedy and grasping rogues.
apnews.com/article/oil-...
This is what makes Trump’s attacks on EVs so stupid. To salvage a failing industry that happens to include his big crooked donors, he’s sabotaging America’s auto industry in international competition. Everything else aside, EVs are just better vehicles. www.eenews.net/articles/dri...
Part brag about all the captured equipment; part exposure of Russia’s often-antiquated technology; part resource for countermeasures research — Ukraine goes open source with Putin’s military hardware. So cool that they do this. trophylab.mod.gov.ua/en/about-us
Then you’d better stand by your CBAM against Trump’s corrupt fossil-fuel-funded attacks! Every remaining pathway to climate safety requires ending fossil fuel’s crooked free-to-pollute business model. CBAM is the best vehicle for that — it’s truly our last lifeboat. www.politico.eu/article/spai...
If the guy was deliberately trying to anger Republican senators, he couldn’t do much better than putting his despised slush fund front and center with elections looming for them. www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...
There’s an old-fashioned name for this: corruption. www.canarymedia.com/articles/fos...
As climate change takes out the places and activities people love . . . .
buckrail.com/in-hot-water...
Subtraction is such a novel concept. Who could have predicted?
www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...
They don’t want people to see what a wreck they’ve made of the place. Empty, echoing, failed — a mob bust-out gone wrong.*
*What do I mean by that? Usually gangsters tried to keep the place going for a while as they looted it. This was a botched job.
www.nytimes.com/2026/07/30/u...
BTW, you want litigation, do terrible claims payment. In the aftermath of disaster, do people want lawsuits, or quick fair claims payment? Fail at the latter, you get the former. Screwing customers more by denying access to lawyers is a lousy solution, except for insurers (donors).
After Hurricane Debby, the state-backed insurer zero-dollared more than 2/3 of Floridians’ claims. It’s their position that more than 2/3 of Floridians are fraudsters entitled to nothing? Or is Florida’s political elite covering for insurance and fossil fuel donors?
Florida officials say it’s not climate change but their own citizens’ massive fraud that’s driving the home insurance crisis. Nice, huh? Here’s how many Floridians get zero dollars after an insurance claim:
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Trump is more focused on collecting money for his pet projects than he is on governing.
Offering donors special access in exchange for tens of millions of dollars isn’t draining the swamp — it’s expanding it.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History885 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
885 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair H.R. 1 | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Amdt. 2360 to H.R. 1 (No short title on file) | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-28 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-06-27 | S.J. Res. 59 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 59 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-40) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (61-35) |
| 2025-06-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-33) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-46) |
| 2025-06-17 | S. 1582 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (68-30) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (57-40) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-39) |
| 2025-06-16 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-33) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (45-52) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 54 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 53 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-41) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-41) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-38) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-37) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-26) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
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.