Mark R. Warner headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Virginia
Born
December 15, 1954
Age 71
Phone
(202) 224-2023
Office
703 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Virginia

Mark R. Warner

Mark Robert Warner is an American businessman and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Virginia, a seat he has held since 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Warner served as the 69th governor of Virginia from 2002 to 2006. He is vice chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus and vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 783
Yes35%
No60%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align90%
Cross-party10%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Mark R. Warner headshot
Mark R. Warner
U.S. SenatorDemocratVirginia
SoupScore
Mark R.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 38 sponsored · 166 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Trump’s efforts to undermine birthright citizenship are just his next attempt to unleash chaos for millions… the same way he’s wreaked havoc on health care, started a deadly and cost-spiking war, and slapped tariffs on all. On all these fronts, we will continue to fight him.
NATO is the most successful military alliance in history. Congress will not sit by while this president tries to unravel it. Our commitment to NATO is ironclad, and we will use every tool available to defend it.
“It is increasingly evident that the greatest threat now comes from inside our own government.” This morning in the New York Times, I lay out the stakes for this administration’s election interference.
From a legal perspective, the FBI’s raid of a Fulton County election office doesn’t pass the smell test. From an intelligence standpoint, it becomes even more suspicious. @markwarner.bsky.social and I unpack the red flags raised by this search in the latest episode of Making the Case. 🔗⬇️
Trump has the audacity to say that “we don’t need the Strait of Hormuz” and that the energy crisis “isn’t affecting our country.” Anyone that’s filled up their tank recently would have to disagree.
This week, we showed that raising your voice works. We got Senate Republicans to fund the rest of DHS with NO additional funding for ICE or CBP. We’re still successfully blocking the SAVE Act. There’s a lot more we need to do, but these are two good steps.
After over a month of delay, Senate Republicans finally came forward to do what we’ve been pushing for — fund TSA, Coast Guard, and other key elements of DHS while we keep pushing for reforms to ICE and CBP. The House needs to get it done ASAP.
While gas prices skyrocket and everything you buy becomes more expensive, Republicans’ top priority is trying to force through an unpopular voter suppression bill. They know they can’t win without it.
Noncitizen voting is extraordinarily rare – in many audits, less than one hundreth of one percent of all votes cast. The SAVE Act is a total sham, cracking down on a problem that isn’t real.
At a moment when threats from abroad are growing more complex and more dangerous, we should be reinforcing the principle that no one is above the law, not rewriting history to benefit those who violated the public trust.
It undermines the rule of law, demeans the work of the men and women who safeguard our national security, and suggests that accountability depends on who you are and who you know, not what you’ve done.
For this Justice Department to now turn around and reward that behavior with a million-dollar settlement sends exactly the wrong message to our adversaries, to our intelligence professionals, and to the American people.
This is someone who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials at a time when Russia was actively interfering in our democratic process, after being charged by the Department of Justice during President Trump’s first term.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
783 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
2025-08-01Confirm 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. 41NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (27-70)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture 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)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)

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 7 / 16Next →