All of the times I’ve wondered what Putin had on Trump, and now we find out Jeffrey Epstein was talking to Putin’s ambassador about Trump.
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 — 788
Yes31%
No65%
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 · 87 sponsored · 214 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Totally normal behavior for someone who’s definitely not guilty.
It’s not Pokrovsk “falling” — it’s a wood chipper into which Russia is feeding its army. The battle line on any day in the shattered remains of this destroyed village matters less than the battle damage to Russian army.
Just got off zoom w Zelenskyy and a few senators. The massacre of Russians coming in to Pokrovsk is brutal and constant, Russia’s worst casualties since they invaded.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Let's just use our common sense here: it seems pretty clear why Donald Trump has fought tooth and nail against releasing the Epstein files.
Way past time to release the files.
Particularly so now that we see payback in Maxwell prison conditions plus maybe evidence her statements not even true.
Looks more and more like this “interview” was a personal/political errand run by DAG to minimize Trump damage; no govt purpose.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what Maxwell’s lawyer and DAG/Trump lawyer Blanche teed up for her exculpatory “interview.”
Well, well, well. As I predicted. It made no sense for Trump to be so enraged that a club member hired away a staff member, unless Trump knew what Epstein was up to.
Totally legit way for a party to communicate with the Supreme Court about a pending case.
Or is it because Putin has something on him?
On Veterans Day, we honor those who answered the call to serve our country and protect our freedoms.
Thank a veteran today!
3. We need to move back as soon as we can to fighting Trump, united and forceful, as the voters who gave us that big win Tuesday expect. Getting back to that fight is how we keep building momentum.
The January 30 CR date gives appropriators time to do that, and the three little bills in the CR get that started.
2. We need to move big appropriations bills that restore spending with strong guardrails to curtail Trump/Vought mischief. Boring but very real.
That December vote is a huge moment we can turn into a victory. People are watching. Good bill, we win; they cheat, they will lose. If we fight united.
Do I trust them? No. That’s why I voted no. But they are in a terrible position, and we can use the next few weeks to turn the pressure up even further.
1. We need to fight hard for a good ACA extension early in December and hold Republicans fiercely accountable if they betray everyone.
No one’s feelings are wrong. That’s not my point. We’re in a real battle, against a corrupt and malevolent foe, with huge stakes. We must win.
The sooner we get past internal recriminations and back to fighting united, the better off we all are — the likelier our victory next November.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History788 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
788 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-41) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (81-15) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (21-75) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (15-81) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (14-81) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-50) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (42-53) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (44-51) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-43) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-41) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-41) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-38) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 34 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (24-73) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 41 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (27-70) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-49) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-44) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-39) |
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.