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 — 789
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 · 88 sponsored · 218 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
More than 22,000 people in RI live with Alzheimer’s, and many thousands more are caregivers for someone with the disease. Glad to join @alzassociation.bsky.social's RI Chapter for “Coffee with Congress” this morning to discuss how life-saving funding must be a bipartisan priority.
What is “mandamus,” and how did two Trump judges use it to stop a federal judge from looking into the DOJ’s misdeeds?
As a former United States Attorney, I add that a federal judge questioning an argument from the highest levels of DOJ as “disingenuous” would set off repercussions in any normal DOJ. But MAGA DOJ doesn’t care about truth or law.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The court then noted that unsealing might “expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal,” that the motion “was aimed not at ‘transparency’ but at diversion — aimed not at full disclosure but the illusion of such.” BOOM!
The court said: “unsealing the materials would not reveal new information of any consequence”; that any knowledgeable person would “learn next to nothing new.” The court said of MAGA DOJ’s focus on grand jury materials, “there is no ‘there’ there.”
This whole “release” was a scam from the get-go: grand jury materials are a sliver of the full file usually, with the greatest legal protection. Turns out, it wasn’t an investigative grand jury; indictments from an agent summary of less than two hours.
Another federal court has reviewed the MAGA DOJ effort to divert the Trump/Epstein-interested public with grand jury materials that (a) they shouldn’t release and that (b) would show virtually nothing.
It didn’t go well for MAGA DOJ; wait for the BOOM!
🧵
Teach you to believe a corporation.
Putting Trump in a room with Putin is like putting a rabbit in a cage with a ferret. Look out. www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/0...
Niece of legendary runner “Tarzan” Brown and eldest (94) elder of the Narragansetts, at 350th annual powwow.
Like fossil fuel emissions, America’s government is blind to the threat, thanks to dirty petrochemical politics and money. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
While the hot lines were down, the photo ops were up.
"The call center staffing meltdown appears to have happened because of an administrative bottleneck created by the Trump administration."
Read more: www.npr.org/2025/08/07/n....
Did you know the smallest state is home to the second-largest Scout camp in America?
I visited with the Scouts at Camp Yawgoog and saw firsthand why so many campers consider this historic camp a second home.
Where this mess leads now remains to be determined, but it has now all the earmarks of a Trump judicial cover-up of Trump executive misconduct, timed to install another Trump judge on the bench, bending if not breaking the law to do that dirty work.
The dissent by Judge Pillard studiously and calmly dismembers the two Trump judges’ arguments. It’s long, but worth reading. This is what it looks like when Trump judges are more loyal to Trump than to law and duty, all to protect MAGA DOJ.
At all costs, judicial inquiry into Trump Department of Justice contempt had to be stopped, even the MAGA AG trying to “create a conflict” with a bizarre ethics complaint against the United States district judge. Two Trump judges did the deed.
It gets worse: the two Trump judges then used “mandamus” to undo the district court’s unappealable order and halt the contempt proceedings entirely. First, abuse of administrative stay, then abuse of mandamus, to shield Trump mischief from review.
Well, well, well.
With Emil Bove safely through his sham Senate confirmation proceedings, the two Trump judges just lifted the three-months-long administrative stay that had kept any evidence of Bove’s contempt of court bottled up.
🧵
Polluters paid good money for that.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History789 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
789 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-03-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (41-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (49-41, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-20 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-18 | S.J. Res. 118 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 118 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-17 | S. 1383 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (89-10) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (82-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (84-10) |
| 2026-03-10 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2026-03-09 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-28) |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-04 | S.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-04 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2026-03-02 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (57-33) |
| 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) |
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.