See how Mark DeSaulnier actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Mark DeSaulnier's record on the issues you care about — not party, not press releases. Take the 2-minute values quiz to see your personal alignment.
Sign in and take the values quiz to see how Mark DeSaulnier's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Mark DeSaulnier's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
100%
Accuracy
1
Correct
0
Incorrect
6
Pending
Right119-hconres-68
To direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Based on 1 data point across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-2811·Notable gap
Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023
15/100
What they said
Apr 15, 2026
Federal government should provide support and planning assistance to help communities adapt to increased telework, including Department of Transportation guidance for Metropolitan Planning Organizations on transit and housing impacts.
DeSaulnier's statement advocates for federal support and Department of Transportation guidance to help communities adapt to telework impacts. The Limit, Save, Grow Act decreases discretionary spending across FY2024-FY2033 and rescinds unobligated COVID-relief funds, which would constrain the federal resources and planning capacity needed to implement the DOT guidance and community support DeSaulnier requested. His no vote aligns with his stated position opposing spending cuts that would undermine federal capacity to assist with telework adaptation.
Pairs with ambiguous language and high uncertainty are withheld until more data is available. Procedural, cloture, and amendment votes are excluded — they don't cleanly signal substantive support or opposition.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Mark DeSaulnier's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.
We haven't extracted campaign positions for Mark DeSaulnier yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.
Crossing the aisle
Passage votes where Mark DeSaulnier broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
3
Cross-aisle votes
118-hr-8034·Apr 20, 2024·84% of D voted YES
Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024
Congressman DeSaulnier to Host Town Hall in Lafayette
Position: Congressman DeSaulnier will discuss House Democrats' efforts to hold President Trump accountable, end what he characterizes as an illegal war in Iran, and lower costs for American families.
Walnut Creek, CA –Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10) announced today that he will host a town hall in Lafayette on Tuesday, May 5th from 6:30 – 7:30 p.m. PT to discuss House Democrats’ work in Congress to hold President Trump accountable, end his illegal war in Iran, and lower costs for American families. The Congressman will also take questions from constituents.
Town Hall in Lafayette
Tuesday, May 5th
6:30 – 7:30 p.m. PT
Lafayette, CA
RSVP for exact location
The event is RSVP only and capacity is limited. To reserve your spot and receive the address of the event, or to request special accommodations, visit https://desaulnier.house.gov/town-hall-rsvp or call (925) 933-2660.
This will be Congressman DeSaulnier’s 265th town hall and mobile district office hour since coming to Congress in January 2015.
DeSaulnier-Requested Government Watchdog Report Confirms Benefits of Telework and Need for Federal Support to Help Communities Adapt
Position: Federal government should provide support and planning assistance to help communities adapt to increased telework, including Department of Transportation guidance for Metropolitan Planning Organizations on transit and housing impacts.
Washington, D.C. – A recently-released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlights how increases in telework have had positive effects on workers, the economy, and the environment and that more federal support is needed to help better plan and harness these impacts.
Commissioned by Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Ranking Member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on the Committee on Education and Workforce, along with Full Committee Ranking Member Robert C. “Bobby” Scott and former Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Carolyn Maloney, the report found that increased telework contributed to changes in transit, vehicle use, and real estate. To respond to these changes, the GAO recommends that the Department of Transportation establish and implement a detailed plan to complete the required travel demand data and subsequent guidance to assist Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) community planning modeling so they can best support workers, their families, public transit, and affordable housing.
“This report confirms what we have suspected to be true since the pandemic – the workforce, and with it the needs of workers and their communities, is changing, and moreover, that the wellbeing of working families, the economy, and the environment are all interconnected,” said Congressman DeSaulnier. “I am proud to have spearheaded this effort that gives us the information and tools we need to begin building and adapting communities that meet the needs and realities of the day so we can improve the quality of life of all Americans.”
This is the third and final report in a series commissioned by Congressman DeSaulnier related to telework’s impacts. The first report examined trends in telework before, during, and after the coronavirus pandemic. The second report laid out data showing the positive impact telework has had on worker productivity and firm performance in certain sectors.
The full GAO report can be read here.
Congressman DeSaulnier Hails $2.6 Billion in Pension Relief Funding for Local Pension Plan Serving Hundreds of Thousands of Retirees
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10) announced that the Northern California UFCW Plan, which is based in Concord, California, a city he represents, will receive $2.6 billion in pension relief funding made possible by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan that the Congressman was proud to vote for in 2021. This funding will enable the plan to continue to pay retirement benefits for its 138,516 participants in the service industry without reduction for many years into the future.
“In the midst of the COVID epidemic, Democrats fought tooth and nail to protect the lives and livelihoods of working Americans and their families, ultimately passing the American Rescue Plan to prevent cuts to the hard-earned benefits of retirees and workers. This funding, that will benefit hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees, including those here in our district, is a direct result of those efforts and I am proud to have helped bring this money home,” said Congressman DeSaulnier.
The application for this funding was submitted to the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) Program by the UFCW – Northern California Employers Joint Pension Plan (Northern California UFCW) and approved by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The SFA Program provides funding to severely underfunded multiemployer pension plans and will ensure that millions of America’s workers, retirees, and their families receive the pension benefits they earned.
Congressman DeSaulnier is a senior member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce where he is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressman DeSaulnier Questions Department of Justice on Local Impact of Impending Closure of San Francisco Immigration Court
Position: Congressman DeSaulnier expresses concern about the Department of Justice's decision to close the San Francisco Immigration Court, arguing that consolidating cases to the Concord court will create logistical barriers for asylum seekers and migrants already facing significant obstacles, and requests detailed information about the closure decision and its implementation.
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman DeSaulnier sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice requesting information and expressing concerns about the impending closure of the San Francisco Immigration Court in San Francisco, California and the impact it will have on the Concord Immigration Court. This letter comes after employees and judges received notice in January that the San Francisco Immigration Court would close by the end of this year, resulting in the transfer of remaining personnel and many cases to the Concord Immigration Court in Concord, California, a city the Congressman represents, nearly 30 miles away.
In the letter, Congressman DeSaulnier wrote, “If this San Francisco closure proceeds, the Concord court will be one of only two federal immigration courts in the entirety of Northern California—a region called home by over 12 million people. Individuals with cases before these courts are following legal asylum and immigration processes, and this closure will place additional logistical hurdles on individuals who already face enormous obstacles to securing their legal rights.
Since January 2025, the number of judges at both the San Francisco and Concord immigration courts have dwindled. San Francisco’s court, which began 2025 with 21 judges, now has just four judges after 14 were fired and four were pressured into early retirements. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), the San Francisco and Concord courts currently have a combined backlog of 177,827 cases, and court dates are already being scheduled years in the future. Given the low capacity and enormous caseload of these two courts, further reducing options for migrants pursuing legal asylum cases in the Bay Area would be irresponsible.”
He continued, “In an effort to better understand your decision to close the San Francisco Court, please provide the below information by April 14, 2026:
What data did your agency use to come to the decision to close the San Francisco Immigration Court? Please provide that data, in addition to data on the current backlog at the San Francisco and Concord courts, the average time to a merits hearing at these courts, court caused continuation rates, and in absentia rates.
What courts other than the Concord court will receive cases currently pending at the San Francisco court?
What is the timeline for transfer of cases to Concord or other courts?
How will respondents and counsel be notified of new hearing locations and dates?
Will there be automatic continuances for cases affected by the transfer?
Will there be expanded remote or hybrid hearing options?
How does your agency plan to reduce the enormous backlog of pending cases at immigration courts in California and nationwide, while ensuring that everyone with a case gets the fair and legal process to which they are entitled?
Does your agency plan to physically expand the Concord Immigration Court or hire additional judges in order to accommodate increased demand?
How will your agency ensure that migrants with cases before the Concord court feel safe and welcome when attending their scheduled hearings? Will your agency ensure that federal immigration enforcement agents present at the court are transparent about their agency, badge number, and name and refrain from wearing facial coverings and openly carrying firearms?
Are additional immigration judges being hired or reassigned to handle the transferred docket to the Concord court?
What is the projected backlog attributable to consolidation?
Additionally, I would like to request a meeting with Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Julie Nelson of the San Francisco Immigration Court to discuss these matters further. Thank you in advance for your timely consideration and response.”
The full text of the letter can be found here.
[1]https://www.kqed.org/news/12068148/san-francisco-immigration-court-down-to-four-judges-after-new-departures
[2]https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/
Congressman DeSaulnier Statement on War Powers Resolution Vote
Position: Congressman DeSaulnier voted in favor of a War Powers Resolution directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran, arguing that the military action lacks congressional authorization, a coherent strategy, and public support, and that it has resulted in American and civilian casualties.
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10) issued the following statement after the House of Representatives’ vote on a War Powers Resolution directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran (H.Con.Res. 38). The resolution failed to pass the House by a vote of 212-to-219.
“I was proud to vote “yes” on the War Powers Resolution to put a stop to President Trump’s illegal war on Iran for which he has offered no coherent strategy, goals, or endgame and which the American people overwhelmingly oppose. My vote was a reflection of the will of the American people who object to yet another forever war in the Middle East in pursuit of regime change, which in this instance has already led to the deaths of half a dozen American servicemembers and over 1,000 civilians as well as regional instability and the likelihood of an even more extreme and dangerous regime taking power.
We cannot continue to let the President act with impunity. Every time Republican leaders in Congress turn a blind eye and cede Congress’s authority, the President is emboldened and empowered to overstep his constitutional power. Today’s vote shows a continued disappointing and irresponsible failure of Republican leadership to follow the Constitution and put a stop to this reckless and corrupt president who only continues to descend into madness."
Articles from a curated list of national outlets that mention Mark DeSaulnier.
No recent news mentions yet.
Source: GDELT 2.0 GKG, filtered to a curated list of national outlets. Inclusion is not endorsement; opinion pieces and reported news are mixed.
Recent stock activity
Periodic transaction reports filed under the STOCK Act — disclosed by the rep, sourced from public filings.
No disclosed trades on record.
Source: open-data mirrors of the Senate eFD and House Clerk financial-disclosure systems. Disclosure within 30 days of trade is required by law (45 for spouse/dependent trades).
Top PAC donors · 2026 cycle
Political action committees that gave the most to this rep's principal campaign committee this cycle. PAC giving is direct organizational support — industry, ideological, or leadership.
1.AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR PACAgriculture12 contributionsAgricultural company PAC — backs candidates supporting sugar-industry subsidies, tariff protections, and farm-friendly trade and regulatory policies.AI$60,000
2.MACHINISTS NON-PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUELabor11 contributionsTrade-union PAC of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers — backs candidates supporting union organizing, prevailing wages, and aerospace/manufacturing jobs.AI$55,000
3.INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS PAC- VOLUNTARY FUND (IBEW PAC)Labor8 contributionsTrade-union PAC for the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers — backs candidates supporting prevailing-wage protections, apprenticeship funding, infrastructure investment, and project labor agreements.AI$40,000
4.THE NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATION PACLabor7 contributionsTrade-union PAC for the National Education Association — backs public education funding, teacher compensation, and labor protections for educators.AI$35,000
5.AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS COPELabor6 contributionsTrade-union PAC for the American Federation of Teachers — backs candidates supporting public education funding, teacher compensation, and collective-bargaining rights.AI$30,000
6.SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUELabor4 contributionsTrade-union PAC for sheet metal workers — backs candidates supporting prevailing-wage standards, apprenticeship programs, and union-friendly labor policies.AI$20,000
8.D.R.I.V.E. DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION (THE PAC OF THE INTERNATIONALLabor3 contributionsTrade-union PAC of the International Union of Operating Engineers — supports candidates backing prevailing-wage standards, infrastructure investment, and worker organizing rights.AI$15,000
9.CARPENTER'S LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEELabor3 contributionsTrade-union PAC for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America — backs prevailing-wage protections, project labor agreements, and federal infrastructure funding.AI$15,000
10.BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN PACLabor2 contributionsTrade-union PAC for locomotive engineers and trainmen — backs candidates supporting rail worker wages, benefits, workplace safety, and rail industry infrastructure.AI$10,000
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.
Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.
1.SIGNATURE HOMES$7,000
2.TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS$7,000
3.TAI GINSBERG & ASSOCIATES LLC$4,500
4.ACTIVEHOURS INC.$4,000
5.SIEGEL LEWITTER MALKANI$4,000
6.WINNINGRESULTS$3,600
7.MACKENZIE CAPITAL$3,500
8.EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS$3,000
9.CONTRA COSTA COUNTY$2,250
10.MARCUS G. FAUST PC$2,000
Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.