See how Steve Scalise actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Steve Scalise'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 Steve Scalise's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
We haven't made any vote predictions for Steve Scalise yet. Predictions are generated for bills with tagged effects; they show up here as soon as the predict-votes job covers this rep's upcoming docket.
Consistency insights
Steve Scalise · statement ↔ vote record
82
Consistency score
Based on 8 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-2·Consistent
Secure the Border Act of 2023
92/100
What they said
May 21, 2026
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
The statement explicitly supports 'commonsense election integrity and border security measures.' The bill directly implements border security expansion through wall construction requirements, barrier mandates, and technology investment plans. The rep voted yes on passage, aligning with the stated position on border security. The statement's broader critique of Democratic rhetoric and antisemitism does not contradict the bill's immigration-focused provisions.
Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act
85/100
What they said
May 21, 2026
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
The statement expresses support for 'border security expansion' and 'commonsense' enforcement measures. The bill requires detention and deportation of non-U.S. nationals arrested for assaulting law enforcement, a specific border security and immigration enforcement provision. The rep's yes vote on passage aligns with the stated position on border security. The statement does not address this specific provision, but the directional alignment on immigration enforcement is clear.
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
The statement expresses support for 'commonsense border security measures,' and the rep voted yes on an amendment to a bill that increases criminal penalties for illegal entry and reentry. The vote aligns with the stated position on border security expansion. The amendment vote type introduces some procedural ambiguity—it does not directly reflect a passage vote on the full bill—but the amendment's substance (stricter penalties for illegal entry) is consistent with the border security position articulated in the statement.
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
The statement expresses support for 'commonsense election integrity and border security measures.' The bill enforces border security and immigration enforcement by penalizing sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration detainers and information-sharing. The rep's YES vote on this immigration-enforcement bill aligns with the stated position on border security expansion. The statement does not address sanctuary city policy specifically, but border security and immigration enforcement are directionally consistent with the bill's provisions.
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
Rep. Scalise's statement expresses support for 'border security expansion' and 'commonsense border security measures.' The Police Our Border Act requires DOJ reporting on how Biden-era border policies have affected law enforcement, which aligns with a border-security-focused agenda that emphasizes enforcement challenges. His yes vote on passage is consistent with the stated position, though the bill itself is narrowly focused on reporting rather than implementing new border security measures directly.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025
75/100
What they said
May 21, 2026
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
The statement expresses support for border security expansion and election integrity measures. The DHS appropriations bill funds border security agencies (CBP, ICE) and election-related functions (Secret Service), aligning with the stated priorities. However, the bill is a broad appropriations measure that funds the entire DHS portfolio—including cybersecurity, FEMA, and other functions—rather than specifically targeting border security expansion or election integrity. The rep's YES vote is generally consistent with the stated support for border security, but the bill does not directly address the antisemitism or Democratic rhetoric concerns mentioned in the statement.
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
The statement expresses support for 'commonsense border security measures,' and the rep voted yes on an amendment to a bill that expands deportation grounds for non-U.S. nationals convicted of violent crimes. The vote aligns directionally with the stated border security position. However, the vote is on an amendment rather than passage, and the statement does not specifically address criminal deportation policy, making the connection somewhat indirect.
Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act, 2025
75/100
What they said
May 21, 2026
The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
The statement emphasizes support for election integrity measures and border security expansion. The bill is a continuing resolution that includes a modification to voter registration requirements for federal elections, which aligns with the rep's stated support for election integrity. However, the bill is primarily an appropriations measure funding federal agencies and disaster relief, not a focused border security or election integrity bill. The rep's YES vote on the CR is generally consistent with supporting election integrity provisions, but the bill's primary purpose and content extend well beyond the specific policy areas highlighted in the statement.
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 Steve Scalise's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.
Positions Steve Scalise took during their campaign, scored against their subsequent record — public statements cross-checked with related votes. “Kept” means 80%+ of those statement-vs-vote pairs aligned; “Broken” means 30% or fewer.
0 kept0 broken0 mixed3 no action yet
Steve Scalise has 3 tracked positions but no scored statement-vs-vote pairs touching them yet. Verdicts will appear here as related statements and votes accumulate.
No action yetSupports
The U.S. should do more to enforce immigration laws and secure the border.
Passage votes where Steve Scalise broke ranks with ≥75% of Republicans. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
1
Cross-aisle vote
119-hres-1398·Jun 30, 2026·97% of R voted YES
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8595) making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8884) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to reauthorize demonstration authority for the disability insurance program; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1383) commemorating the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Working Families Tax Cuts; and for other purposes.
Scalise: Democrats Once Again Side with Open Borders Over Public Safety
Position: House Republicans support increased funding for ICE agents, Border Patrol agents, and law enforcement officers to secure the border and maintain public safety, and criticize House Democrats for opposing this funding.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) joined Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), and Angel Families to celebrate the passage of the Secure America Act. Leader Scalise highlighted the fact that every House Democrat voted against funding the ICE agents, Border Patrol agents, and law enforcement officers who secure America's border and keep communities safe.
Image
Fox News: GOP urges SCOTUS to reject 'war on American energy' they say would hit families' wallets
Position: House Republicans urge the Supreme Court to reject a Colorado county's climate liability lawsuit against major oil companies, arguing it represents federal overreach that would drive up energy costs and undermine national energy policy set by Congress.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Fox News’ Adam Pack highlighted House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and House Republicans urging the Supreme Court to side with ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in a climate lawsuit that would drive up energy costs, threaten domestic energy production, and hand local activists outsized influence over national energy policy. To see highlights of the piece, see below. To read the full article, click here.
Fox News: GOP urges SCOTUS to reject 'war on American energy' they say would hit families' wallets
Rep Gabe Evans calls the Boulder County case an attack on Colorado jobs and American energy independence
June 2, 2026
By Adam Pack
More than 70 lawmakers are lining up against a Colorado county's effort to hold major oil companies financially liable for alleged climate change damages.
The group of House Republicans led by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., is calling on the Supreme Court to side with ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in a hotly contested climate change lawsuit that they argue amounts to a costly "war on American energy."
The GOP lawmakers have characterized Boulder County’s lawsuit as a "dangerous overreach" that could leave major fossil fuel companies on the hook for billions of dollars in alleged damages. A positive ruling for the liberal county would encourage more lawsuits that could threaten the financial viability of the fossil fuel industry, they warn.
"Radical activists are trying to use the courts to accomplish what they couldn't achieve through legislation — forcing their radical agenda on the American people and driving energy costs even higher," Scalise said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital. "These lawsuits would hand local activist politicians the power to dictate national energy policy and threaten the energy producers that power our economy."
Attorneys with the law firm Boyden Gray filed the amicus, or "friend of the court," brief on behalf of the congressional Republicans.
The court is expected to hear oral arguments this fall in Suncor v. Boulder about whether federal law preempts localities from seeking relief for alleged climate damages in state courts. A ruling is expected in 2027.
The case reached the nation’s highest court after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the yearslong case to proceed under state law, despite long-standing questions about whether localities can seek damages over cross-border and global greenhouse gas emissions. Boulder originally sued the major oil companies in 2018, arguing they knowingly contributed to global warming and misled the public about alleged climate harms.
The Republicans’ amicus brief argues that liability claims belong under federal jurisdiction, because allowing state courts to adjudicate global climate damages would result in a "cacophony of competing state commands" that undermine Congress’ role in setting national energy policy.
"The Court should reject this attempt by Respondents to establish their 'own foreign policy' from a Boulder courthouse," the brief reads.
The signers also warned that a ruling in favor of Boulder County could unleash devastating economic losses for U.S. energy producers.
"The sheer magnitude of the alleged damages would restructure the American energy industry if not bankrupt it altogether — and cause ripple effects worldwide, especially when multiplied by the dozens of similar cases across the country," the brief continued.
The legal battle is also spilling into Colorado politics, where Republicans argue that climate-related lawsuits championed by Democrats threaten jobs and drive up energy costs.
Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., a freshman lawmaker representing a swing district near the city of Boulder, cast the lawsuit as part of Democrats’ efforts to make energy production unaffordable.
"These lawsuits and regulations aren't just attacks on oil and gas companies — they're attacks on Colorado jobs, American energy independence and every family already struggling with higher costs," Evans, who signed the brief, told Fox News Digital. "I will continue fighting to protect Colorado energy workers and unleash the all-of-the-above energy strategy our nation needs."
Scalise: Democrats' Politics of Hatred and Division Need to Stop
Position: The release criticizes Democrats for rhetoric and policies, expressing support for election integrity measures and border security expansion while calling for action against antisemitism.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) joined Fox Business Network’s Kudlow to call out Democrats’ increasingly dangerous rhetoric, failure to confront rising antisemitism on the left, and continued opposition to commonsense election integrity and border security measures.
Image
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.
No PAC contributions ranked for the 2026 cycle yet.
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.INFORMATION REQUESTED PER BEST EFFORTS$141,184
2.S-3 GROUP$28,600
3.ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ$26,800
4.CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$26,500
5.SELF$26,368
6.APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$22,800
7.MEHLMAN CASTAGNETTI ROSEN THOMAS$19,000
8.APOLLO$18,100
9.BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK$14,083
10.ULINE$14,000
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.
