All that extra money Trump is making families pay by stomping on low-cost-to-drive EVs (never mind the damage to U.S. auto industry in international competition, where EV sales are soaring and China dominates).
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.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
1,200+ former Justice Department employees just spoke out against Todd Blanche.
These are career civil servants who have actually defended our nation in court under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
Todd Blanche only defends Donald Trump.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Every day, Americans are paying higher costs due to Pres. Trump’s unilateral failures in Iran. I’ve been clear since day one: Trump must change course.
Clearly, his son-in-law and golfing buddy aren’t getting the job done. Not in Iran. And not in Ukraine.
Rubio, three weeks ago: “No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway.”
Trump, yesterday: the U.S. will charge a 20 percent fee on maritime cargo through Strait of Hormuz.
So much for the principle of freedom of navigation. China is watching.
The action now moves to the Bar examiners in New York and whatever investigation they choose to pursue now that they have this stunning and unprecedented federal court reprimand before them.
“[T]he Court may reasonably infer that the Government failed to defend this lawsuit or respond to the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry because its position would not withstand judicial scrutiny and because resolution … would not have favored its preferred outcome to this case.”
Postscript: in this case, “Defendants never appeared, never challenged Plaintiffs’ claims, and never filed a single pleading …. they actively avoided such an undertaking.” Did filing nothing show consciousness of the sham, hoping to avoid reach of the court?
The judge directed her order be sent “to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Blanche is a member,” having flagged what she called the “the stain of political interference” in reference to DOJ.
The finale: the Court found “‘this lawsuit non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper,’” and “‘part of Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.’”
No surprise, since she found collusion, and it takes two to collude: “the Parties worked in tandem and were never actually adverse.” Blanche’s conduct showed “only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.”
In her final round-up the blame fell on both sides: “the Parties and counsel” tried “to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity … and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”
“[T]he Government entered into a ‘settlement’ that deviated from its litigation posture in similar actions, disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives … specifically prohibited, by law.” Ouch.
As to the amnesty for Trumps, she said “acquiescing to any such demand is wholly incompatible with the duties of DOJ attorneys,” and may be an unconstitutional Emolument to the President, “a glaring omission.”
“Indeed, the DOJ seems to have purposefully adopted the strategy of creating a ‘slush fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled.’”
On the defense side, DOJ did not get off much better: “Defendants’ conduct is equally untenable,” rooted in “obeisance to the mandate of [Trump’s] Executive Order,” and “abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States.”
“Accordingly, the Court expressly finds that Plaintiffs [Trump et al] acted in bad faith,” and defined bad faith thus: “fraud has been practiced upon [the court], or that the very temple of justice has been defiled.” That’s the Trumps.
“[T]hey filed a multibillion-dollar lawsuit asserting claims that they knew, or should have known, were time-barred and for an amount of damages unsupported by facts or law.”
“Plaintiffs [Trumps] acted in bad faith and for an improper purpose by ‘collusively filing a lawsuit with claims subject to multiple dispositive defenses solely to provide cover for a collusive settlement.’”
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (91-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-07 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (86-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-08-07 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Amendment Rejected (32-64) |
| 2026-08-05 | S.J. Res. 187 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-08-05 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-08-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2026-08-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2026-08-03 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (89-4, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-30 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-07-30 | S.J. Res. 181 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 181 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-07-30 | S.J. Res. 199 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-07-29 | S. Res. 817 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-07-29 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-12) |
| 2026-07-28 | H.R. 5334 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (86-12, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2026-07-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2026-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2026-07-23 | S.J. Res. 180 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 180 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-49) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-44) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (62-36) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2026-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2026-07-21 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-48) |
| 2026-07-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (43-40) |
| 2026-07-16 | S.J. Res. 198 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-50) |
| 2026-07-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-07-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-07-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-07-14 | S. 4784 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-07-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-07-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 196 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-52) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-23 | H. Con. Res. 86 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-06-23 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2026-06-22 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Accept House changes | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Agreed to (85-5) |
| 2026-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-39) |
| 2026-06-18 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-8, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-17 | S. Res. 616 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.Res. 616 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (44-50) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-39) |
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.
Page 1 / 18Next →