Sponsorship· AbortionCosponsor
Loading figure…
Loading figure…
Graham has been a strong proponent of an interventionist foreign policy, supporting military action in Iraq and Afghanistan and advocating for U.S. involvement in conflicts to support allies. He has been critical of the Obama administration's foreign policy and has consistently pushed for a robust military presence abroad.
Graham has been a strong proponent of an interventionist foreign policy, supporting military action in Iraq and Afghanistan and advocating for U.S. involvement in conflicts to support allies. He has been critical of the Obama administration's foreign policy and has consistently pushed for a robust military presence abroad.
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.
Lindsey Graham has historically supported comprehensive immigration reform, advocating for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants while emphasizing the need for border security. He has also proposed changes to asylum laws and increased legal immigration pathways.
Lindsey Graham has historically supported comprehensive immigration reform, advocating for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants while emphasizing the need for border security. He has also proposed changes to asylum laws and increased legal immigration pathways.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Graham has consistently advocated for a strong national defense and military interventionist policies. He has supported military actions in various conflicts and has been a vocal critic of perceived threats to U.S. interests, particularly from countries like Iran and Russia.
Graham has consistently advocated for a strong national defense and military interventionist policies. He has supported military actions in various conflicts and has been a vocal critic of perceived threats to U.S. interests, particularly from countries like Iran and Russia.
“Destroy Iran's nuclear program, & also its air force & navy. (Jul 2015)”
Lindsey Graham has consistently advocated for restrictions on abortion, sponsoring legislation to ban it after 20 weeks of gestation. He has expressed that the issue should be left to the states, but also introduced a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks, indicating a desire for a national minimum standard.
Lindsey Graham has consistently advocated for restrictions on abortion, sponsoring legislation to ban it after 20 weeks of gestation. He has expressed that the issue should be left to the states, but also introduced a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks, indicating a desire for a national minimum standard.
“Pro-life, with exceptions for rape, incest, & maternal life. (Jun 2015)”
Lindsey Graham has shown a mixed approach to climate change. He initially supported climate legislation but later withdrew his support, expressing skepticism about the science of climate change and opposing extensive federal regulations. However, he has also sponsored legislation aimed at facilitating carbon credit trading for farmers.
Lindsey Graham has shown a mixed approach to climate change. He initially supported climate legislation but later withdrew his support, expressing skepticism about the science of climate change and opposing extensive federal regulations. However, he has also sponsored legislation aimed at facilitating carbon credit trading for farmers.
“I'm no scientist, but 90% of them say climate change is real. (Oct 2015)”
Lindsey Graham opposes stricter gun regulations, including universal background checks, which he argues would lead to gun registration. He has supported legislation aimed at closing loopholes in existing laws but remains a strong advocate for gun rights.
Lindsey Graham opposes stricter gun regulations, including universal background checks, which he argues would lead to gun registration. He has supported legislation aimed at closing loopholes in existing laws but remains a strong advocate for gun rights.
“Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Lindsey Graham has been a vocal opponent of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and has advocated for its repeal. He has proposed legislation that would allow states to remove protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, reflecting a preference for less federal involvement in healthcare.
Lindsey Graham has been a vocal opponent of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and has advocated for its repeal. He has proposed legislation that would allow states to remove protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, reflecting a preference for less federal involvement in healthcare.
“Oppose ObamaCare but don't shut down government for that. (Sep 2015)”
Lindsey Graham supports tax cuts and has opposed higher taxes on corporations and top earners, advocating for a simplified tax code and lower rates. He has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, committing to not raise taxes.
Lindsey Graham supports tax cuts and has opposed higher taxes on corporations and top earners, advocating for a simplified tax code and lower rates. He has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, committing to not raise taxes.
“Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Jan 2012)”
Lindsey Graham supports school choice and has criticized federal education standards like Common Core. He has advocated for increased funding for military service eligibility for homeschool graduates and supports teaching abstinence in sex education.
Lindsey Graham supports school choice and has criticized federal education standards like Common Core. He has advocated for increased funding for military service eligibility for homeschool graduates and supports teaching abstinence in sex education.
“Sex education about abstinence, not contraception. (Oct 2014)”
Lindsey Graham supports stricter voting laws, including voter ID requirements and limiting mail-in voting. He has been involved in efforts to pass legislation aimed at securing election integrity.
Lindsey Graham supports stricter voting laws, including voter ID requirements and limiting mail-in voting. He has been involved in efforts to pass legislation aimed at securing election integrity.
“ALL VOTERS MUST SHOW PHOTO I.D. (IDENTIFICATION!). (Jun 2025)”
Graham has supported free trade agreements and has been critical of tariffs, arguing that they harm the economy. He has emphasized the importance of trade relationships, particularly with allies, and has advocated for policies that promote free trade.
Graham has supported free trade agreements and has been critical of tariffs, arguing that they harm the economy. He has emphasized the importance of trade relationships, particularly with allies, and has advocated for policies that promote free trade.
“Free trade with post-Orange Revolution Ukraine. (Apr 2005)”
Graham has historically supported traditional definitions of marriage and has opposed federal recognition of same-sex marriage, voting for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and expressing that states should decide marriage issues. He voted against the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022, indicating a preference for state-level decision-making on marriage.
Graham has historically supported traditional definitions of marriage and has opposed federal recognition of same-sex marriage, voting for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and expressing that states should decide marriage issues. He voted against the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022, indicating a preference for state-level decision-making on marriage.
Graham has expressed skepticism about government mandates for vaccines and public health measures, advocating for personal choice in health decisions. He has criticized others for creating unnecessary anxiety around vaccines, indicating a preference for less government intervention in health matters.
Graham has expressed skepticism about government mandates for vaccines and public health measures, advocating for personal choice in health decisions. He has criticized others for creating unnecessary anxiety around vaccines, indicating a preference for less government intervention in health matters.
“Criticized Rand Paul for creating anxiety about vaccines. (Aug 2021)”
Position extraction pending on 8 issues: Economy & Jobs, School Curriculum, Criminal Justice, Tech Regulation, Elections & Campaigns, Drug & Addiction Policy, Religion & Public Life, Disaster Response.
Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S3214)
“Pro-life, with exceptions for rape, incest, & maternal life. (Jun 2015)”
Why: Cosponsoring a resolution celebrating the Dobbs decision aligns directly with the stated position of opposing abortion access, as the ruling significantly restricted federal protections for abortion.
Mar 11, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: The STAND with Taiwan Act directly supports U.S. involvement and military assistance to Taiwan, aligning closely with the stated position of advocating for interventionist foreign policy.
View source →Jan 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: Sponsoring the Save the Kurds Act directly supports interventionist foreign policy by advocating for U.S. assistance to Kurdish forces, aligning with the stated position of promoting military involvement to support allies.
View source →Dec 17, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Why: Sponsoring a resolution urging action against vessels transporting sanctioned oil from Russia directly aligns with a proactive and interventionist foreign policy stance.
View source →Nov 3, 2025 · Congress.gov
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 439.
“I'm no scientist, but 90% of them say climate change is real. (Oct 2015)”
Why: Cosponsoring the America the Beautiful Act indicates support for federal action on climate initiatives, which aligns with the stated position despite the mixed approach.
View source →Apr 28, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: The 287(g) Expansion Act aims to broaden local law enforcement's role in immigration enforcement, which directly contradicts the support for pathways to citizenship and comprehensive reform.
View source →Apr 22, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Sanctuary City Elimination Act directly contradicts the support for pathways to citizenship and comprehensive immigration reform, as it seeks to eliminate protections for undocumented immigrants.
View source →Apr 16, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“Pro-life, with exceptions for rape, incest, & maternal life. (Jun 2015)”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill aimed at preventing abortion directly contradicts the stated opposition to abortion access, as it seeks to impose further restrictions.
View source →Feb 9, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 318.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: Sponsoring a bill that seeks to end sanctuary cities directly contradicts the support for pathways to citizenship and comprehensive immigration reform.
View source →Jan 29, 2025 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: Sponsoring a bill that seeks to end birthright citizenship directly contradicts the support for pathways to citizenship, undermining the stated position on immigration reform.
View source →May 21, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: The Mandatory E-Verify Act aims to enforce stricter immigration controls, which contradicts the support for pathways to citizenship in the stated position.
View source →May 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Became Public Law No: 119-98.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: The Secure America Act includes stricter measures that undermine the support for pathways to citizenship, thus moving against the stated position on immigration.
View source →Apr 13, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Free trade with post-Orange Revolution Ukraine. (Apr 2005)”
Why: The act promotes domestic purchasing, which can be seen as a protectionist measure, contradicting the support for free trade and lower tariffs.
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 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided summary, making it unclear how it aligns with the stated position on foreign policy.
View source →Jun 3, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the title alone, making it unclear how it aligns with the stated position on gun policy.
View source →May 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided information, making it unclear how it aligns with the 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 S2351; text: CR S2379-2380)
Why: The resolution addresses antisemitism, which is a civil rights issue, but does not directly relate to the figure's stated opposition to federal recognition of same-sex marriage, making the relationship unclear.
View source →May 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Held at the desk.
“Criticized Rand Paul for creating anxiety about vaccines. (Aug 2021)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear as it is held at the desk, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on public health.
View source →Feb 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Why: The measure's content is unclear in relation to civil rights, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position.
View source →Jan 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“We need more legal immigration. (Sep 2015)”
Why: The bill's content regarding obstruction of immigration laws does not clearly align with or contradict the stated position on comprehensive immigration reform, making the relationship unclear.
Jan 8, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“I'm no scientist, but 90% of them say climate change is real. (Oct 2015)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the provided information, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on climate.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, 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 Finance.
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Jun 9, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
“Sex education about abstinence, not contraception. (Oct 2014)”
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 →Jun 2, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Why: Tagged to Elections & Campaigns, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Held at the desk.
Why: Tagged to Criminal Justice, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 11, 2026 · Congress.gov
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 404.
Why: Tagged to Criminal Justice, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 11, 2026 · Congress.gov
Held at the desk.
Why: Tagged to Criminal Justice, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Why: Tagged to Criminal Justice, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 21, 2026 · Congress.gov
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 211, 1 Present (Roll no. 143). (text: CR H3147-3146)
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Mar 26, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
“Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Jan 2012)”
Why: Tagged to Taxes, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Mar 26, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Why: Tagged to Criminal Justice, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Mar 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Why: Tagged to Criminal Justice, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Mar 3, 2026 · Congress.gov
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4412; text: CR S4412)
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Dec 17, 2025 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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 23, 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 →Jun 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3052; text: CR S3061-3062)
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 11, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 18, 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 →May 14, 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 →May 13, 2026 · Congress.gov
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
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 12, 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 →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 →Apr 30, 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 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
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
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 S2086)
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 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2057; text: CR S2056)
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 16, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 13, 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 →Mar 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1051; text: CR S1051)
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
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 →Feb 4, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 3, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 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 →Jan 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 301.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Oct 29, 2025 · Congress.gov
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Oct 21, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on the Budget. (text: CR S7188)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Sep 30, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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.