Sponsorship· Economy & JobsCosponsor
Loading figure…
Loading figure…
Jack Reed supports maintaining strong national defense and security capabilities, emphasizing the importance of military readiness and strategic alliances.
Jack Reed supports maintaining strong national defense and security capabilities, emphasizing the importance of military readiness and strategic alliances.
Jack Reed supports expanding legal immigration and asylum pathways. He has sponsored legislation to disallow religion-based immigration bans and has been rated 8% by the U.S. Border Control, indicating a pro-immigrant stance.
How do you perceive this figure's political lean?
Community votes: Left 0% · Center 0% · Right 0% (0 votes)
Sign in to cast a vote.
Jack Reed supports expanding legal immigration and asylum pathways. He has sponsored legislation to disallow religion-based immigration bans and has been rated 8% by the U.S. Border Control, indicating a pro-immigrant stance.
“Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance.”
Jack Reed supports government intervention to support economic stability and growth, as evidenced by his support for significant COVID relief packages and other economic measures.
Jack Reed supports government intervention to support economic stability and growth, as evidenced by his support for significant COVID relief packages and other economic measures.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package.”
Jack Reed has a strong pro-choice stance, advocating for legal access to abortion and protecting reproductive rights. He has been rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record, and has supported measures to keep federal funding for family planning clinics.
Jack Reed has a strong pro-choice stance, advocating for legal access to abortion and protecting reproductive rights. He has been rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record, and has supported measures to keep federal funding for family planning clinics.
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.”
Jack Reed supports federal action to cut emissions and has advocated for clean energy initiatives. He has been rated 100% by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a pro-environment voting record.
Jack Reed supports federal action to cut emissions and has advocated for clean energy initiatives. He has been rated 100% by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a pro-environment voting record.
“Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.”
Jack Reed supports stricter firearms regulation, including background checks for every firearm sale. He has been rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.
Jack Reed supports stricter firearms regulation, including background checks for every firearm sale. He has been rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.
“Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.”
Jack Reed supports a larger government role in health coverage, advocating for the preservation of the Affordable Care Act and increased funding for public health initiatives. He has been rated 100% by the American Public Health Association, indicating a pro-public health record.
Jack Reed supports a larger government role in health coverage, advocating for the preservation of the Affordable Care Act and increased funding for public health initiatives. He has been rated 100% by the American Public Health Association, indicating a pro-public health record.
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Jack Reed supports higher taxes on corporations and top earners, advocating for progressive taxation policies. He has been rated 100% by the Citizens for Tax Justice, indicating support for progressive taxation.
Jack Reed supports higher taxes on corporations and top earners, advocating for progressive taxation policies. He has been rated 100% by the Citizens for Tax Justice, indicating support for progressive taxation.
“Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.”
Jack Reed advocates for more federal funding for public schools and has been rated 91% by the National Education Association, indicating pro-public education votes. He supports measures to extend subsidized federal student loan rates.
Jack Reed advocates for more federal funding for public schools and has been rated 91% by the National Education Association, indicating pro-public education votes. He supports measures to extend subsidized federal student loan rates.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Jack Reed supports expanding ballot access and has sponsored legislation to expand voter registration and access to voting. He has advocated for measures to make voting easier and more accessible.
Jack Reed supports expanding ballot access and has sponsored legislation to expand voter registration and access to voting. He has advocated for measures to make voting easier and more accessible.
“Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access.”
Jack Reed advocates for stronger federal protections against discrimination, particularly in support of LGBTQ rights. He has been rated 89% by the Human Rights Campaign, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.
Jack Reed advocates for stronger federal protections against discrimination, particularly in support of LGBTQ rights. He has been rated 89% by the Human Rights Campaign, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.
“Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.”
Position extraction pending on 6 issues: Foreign Policy, School Curriculum, Trade, Criminal Justice, Tech Regulation, Elections & Campaigns.
Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act directly supports economic stability by addressing wage theft, aligning closely with the stated position on government intervention for economic growth.
Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
“Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Investing in State Energy Act aligns directly with the goal of federal action to cut emissions and promote clean energy initiatives.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act directly supports the stated position of ensuring legal access to abortion and protecting reproductive rights.
View source →Jun 8, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill to protect reproductive rights directly advances the stated position on legal access to abortion.
View source →May 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill that targets taxation on oil company buybacks aligns directly with the stated support for progressive taxation and higher taxes on the wealthy.
View source →May 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the act directly supports expanding healthcare access and aligns with the commitment to public health, particularly for mid-life women's health issues.
View source →Apr 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
“Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Firearm Safety Act directly supports the stated pro-gun control stance by advocating for measures that enhance firearm safety and regulation.
View source →Apr 22, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
“Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Absentee and Mail Voter Protection Act directly supports expanding voter registration and access, aligning closely with the stated position on voting rights.
View source →Apr 16, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Ending the Carried Interest Loophole Act directly supports progressive taxation by targeting tax breaks for the wealthy, aligning with the stated position.
View source →Mar 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act aligns directly with the support for progressive taxation and higher taxes on the wealthy, as it targets excess profits from oil companies.
View source →Mar 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1093)
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: Sponsoring the EMPOWER for Health Act directly supports expanding access to healthcare, aligning with the stated position on preserving Medicaid and ACA services.
View source →Mar 4, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the PrEP Access and Coverage Act directly supports expanding healthcare access, aligning with the commitment to preserve and enhance public health services.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the act supports the broader goal of enhancing healthcare services and workforce support, aligning with the position advocating for a larger government role in health coverage.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the State Firearms Dealer Licensing Enhancement Act moves in the direction of stricter regulation by addressing licensing, which aligns with the stated support for background checks and closing loopholes.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Medicare Cost Cap Act indicates support for government involvement in healthcare, aligning with the advocacy for a larger government role in health coverage.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S3215-3216)
“Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.”
Why: Cosponsoring a resolution recognizing LGBTQ Pride Month supports the stated position of advocating for stronger federal protections against discrimination for LGBTQ rights.
View source →Jun 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act supports increased access to education funding, which aligns with the advocacy for more federal funding for public schools.
View source →Jun 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance.”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill for temporary protected status for Haiti aligns with the broader support for expanding legal immigration pathways, as it facilitates protection for individuals from Haiti.
View source →Jun 16, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text: CR S2821)
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Stock Buyback Accountability Act aims to regulate corporate practices that can impact economic stability, aligning with the support for government intervention in the economy.
View source →Jun 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (text: CR S2786-2791; Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2786)
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package.”
Why: Cosponsoring the Make More in America Act indicates support for government intervention in the economy, aligning with the stated position on economic stability and growth.
View source →Apr 21, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1859)
“Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.”
Why: Sponsoring the Southeast New England Program Authorization Act indicates support for environmental initiatives, aligning with the goal of advancing clean energy and environmental protection.
View source →Mar 26, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: Cosponsoring the act to expedite disability insurance payments aligns with the stated position of expanding access to healthcare for vulnerable populations.
View source →Mar 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1093)
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: Sponsoring a bill focused on stem cell research aligns with expanding healthcare access and advancing medical research, which supports the broader goals of improving public health.
View source →Mar 4, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
“Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access.”
Why: Cosponsoring the DISCLOSE Act, which aims to improve transparency in campaign finance, aligns with the broader goal of enhancing voting rights and access.
View source →Jun 22, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S2820-2821)
“Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill to abolish a fund related to firearms regulation directly contradicts the stated support for stricter firearms regulation.
View source →Most are procedural sponsorships or actions on issues where this figure hasn't publicly stated a position. Highest-signal entries shown first.
Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package.”
Why: The Investor Choice Act of 2026 may have elements that support economic growth, but without specific details on its provisions, it's unclear how it aligns with direct government intervention for economic stability.
View source →Jun 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
“Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.”
Why: The Small Farm Conservation Act may include elements related to conservation and sustainability, but it does not directly address federal action to cut emissions or clean energy initiatives.
View source →Jun 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: The action of cosponsoring a health-related bill indicates some support for healthcare initiatives, but without details on the bill's specific provisions, the alignment with the stated position is unclear.
View source →Jun 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.”
Why: The bill addresses child labor protections, which relates to civil rights, but does not specifically advance LGBTQ rights or broader anti-discrimination measures.
View source →Jun 11, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.”
Why: The act focuses on restoring and preserving gun records, which does not directly advance the stated support for stricter regulations and background checks.
View source →Jun 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S2897-2899)
Why: Tagged to Foreign Policy, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Jun 8, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Why: Tagged to Tech Regulation, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
May 21, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2418-2419)
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 19, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 14, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 28, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S2055-2056)
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 22, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1902; text: CR S1938-1939)
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 13, 2026 · Congress.gov
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (CR S2407)
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Mar 16, 2026 · Congress.gov
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.
“Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.”
Why: Tagged to Education, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Mar 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Jul 18, 2023 · Congress.gov
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 118-510.
Why: Tagged to Tech Regulation, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Jun 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S4337-4338)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jun 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Held at the desk.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jun 4, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jun 3, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8278-8279)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jun 1, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2480; text: CR S2478-2479)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →May 19, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2381; text: CR S2380)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →May 11, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2205; text: CR S2203)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →May 11, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2205; text: CR S2203-2204)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2160; text: CR S2180-2181)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 28, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2076-2077; text: CR S2084-2085)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 21, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 25, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1609; text: CR S1617-1618)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Held at the desk.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Became Public Law No: 119-80.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 362.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 52. Record Vote Number: 121. (consideration: CR S2264-2265)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2272)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1048-1049)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 3, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 18, 2023 · Congress.gov
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 118-441.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →
Discussion
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion.
Sign in to join the discussion.