Covers a growing list of members of Congress · more members being added · House votes Jan 3, 2025 – Sept 15, 2026

Did they do what they said?

A promise scorecard puts something a politician promised during a campaign next to what they did after they won. Every promise has a quote and a link. Every vote links to the official record. We do not tell you if that is good or bad. You decide.

Find a scorecard

Loading the list…

Type a name Or pick a state

Not on the list yet? We are adding members over time, leaders and swing seats first. Go back to the voter tool to look up your own representatives.

Two full examples

These two members are shown in full here, one from each party, with seven promises each. Five more swing-district members are on the next page.

How to read this

A promise has to have a receipt. It may be written or spoken during the campaign. We accept attributable promises from campaign pages, candidate questionnaires, debates, forums, interviews, speeches and recordings. Every quote needs a source link; spoken quotes also need a timestamp and a verified speaker. Nothing here is merely what someone implied.
A test has to be a real vote. A specific bill, on a specific day, where a yes and a no clearly meant two different things.
Six answers. Yes (kept) means they voted the way the promise said. No (broke) means they voted the other way. Mixed means the record cuts both ways. Partly tested means a vote touched the promise but did not settle it — only part of what they promised has come to a vote. No vote yet means nothing has come to the floor that tests it — and we leave those on the list, because a promise nobody has been asked to keep is worth knowing about too. Can't be tested means it is a real promise but votes are the wrong measuring stick for it — we say so rather than stretching it onto a vote that nearly fits.
We show our reasoning in one sentence under every answer, so if you disagree with the call, you can see exactly which step you disagree with.
This measures votes, with one kind of exception. Not speeches, not committee work, not personal conduct. A vote is the one thing on the record in the same way for every member. The only exception is a promise to sponsor a specific bill. For those, we check the official cosponsor list on Congress.gov, and the row says so.

Why these two

We needed two members who both have a clear written record and who both face real voters, so the promises would be specific rather than slogans. Both of these represent districts that flipped or nearly flipped, and both wrote their promises down in public:

Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr. (Republican, Pennsylvania's 8th district) — first elected 2024, in a district his opponent had held for twelve years. His campaign site listed promises in the first person, and since taking office he has signed a public letter and issued press releases that make further specific commitments.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Democrat, Washington's 3rd district) — elected in a district that had voted Republican for years. Her campaign site carries a long, itemised issues page that is still online today, so the promise wording can be checked against an archived copy from before the election.

Both members appear in every House roll call in our local records for this Congress (January 3, 2025 through September 15, 2026), so no vote had to be guessed at.

Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr.

Republican · Pennsylvania's 8th district · in office since January 3, 2025

7 promises: 3 kept, 1 broken, 1 mixed, 1 no vote yet, 1 can't be tested. Tap a promise for the quote, the source and the reasoning.

The promise	Kept?	See the vote
	Yes	H.R. 29 — the Laken Riley Act, immigration detentionHouse roll call 6 · January 7, 2025
The promise, in his words "We must secure the border, build the wall, and reverse the Biden/Harris failed policies to stop the flow of illegal drugs and criminals into our communities." Campaign site issues section, robforpa.com — read from the Internet Archive snapshot of October 20, 2024 (before the election). View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 29, the Laken Riley Act — House roll call 6, January 7, 2025. Passed 264–159. A yes meant: require federal officers to detain people in the country illegally who are arrested or charged with theft-related crimes. A no meant: leave the existing detention rules as they were. He voted YES. He also voted yes on the Senate's identical version (S. 5, roll call 23, January 22, 2025). Official House roll call 6 · The bill on Congress.gov Why this answer He said he would vote to tighten border and immigration enforcement, and when the first big enforcement bill of the term reached the floor he voted for it twice. What this does not test: the "build the wall" half is about money, not this bill. The closest money vote is the July 2025 reconciliation law (H.R. 1), which included new border-barrier funding and which he also voted for — see promise 2.
	Mixed	H.R. 1 — the big tax and spending lawHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025
The promise, in his words "We need to stop the reckless spending, get inflation under control, and cut taxes so you can keep more of the money you earn for your family." Campaign site issues section, robforpa.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — House roll call 145, May 22, 2025, passed 215–214; then roll call 190, July 3, 2025, passed 218–214. Signed into law July 4, 2025. A yes meant: pass a single large tax-and-spending law — extending the 2017 tax rates, adding new deductions, and changing health and food assistance programs. A no meant: reject that package. He voted YES both times. Roll call 145 · Roll call 190 · The bill on Congress.gov Why this answer He voted to cut taxes, which is one half of what he promised, but the Congressional Budget Office scored that same law as adding roughly $3.4 trillion to deficits over 2025–2034, which is the opposite of the "stop the reckless spending" half. Where that number comes from: the CBO estimate as reported by FactCheck.org and the American Hospital Association's summary of the CBO letter. Supporters of the law argue the CBO method understates growth; that argument is theirs to make and you can weigh it.
	No vote yet	No vote tests this yetNothing on the floor has cut a benefit or raised the retirement age
The promise, in his words "I will always fight to protect Social Security & Medicare for future generations… I will not support raising the retirement age or any benefit cuts to these programs." Campaign site issues section, robforpa.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it There isn't one yet. We checked all 669 recorded House votes from January 3, 2025 to September 15, 2026. The only ones that touch Social Security are administrative bills — for example the Social Security Child Protection Act (roll call 306, December 1, 2025) — and yearly budget blueprints, which set targets rather than changing anyone's benefit. No vote has been held on raising the retirement age or cutting a benefit. Why this answer Nothing has come to the floor that would make him choose, so this promise is still untested — which is worth saying out loud rather than quietly dropping.
	No	H.R. 1 — the same law, which changed MedicaidHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025
The promise, in his words "We acknowledge that we must reform Medicaid so that it is a strong and long-lasting program for years to come… However, we cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations." Letter to House Republican leadership signed by Rep. Bresnahan and eleven colleagues, April 17, 2025, published on his own official site. Read the letter The vote that tests it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — roll call 145, May 22, 2025, and roll call 190, July 3, 2025. A yes meant: pass the final reconciliation bill, which included Medicaid work requirements and eligibility checks. A no meant: send it back rather than pass it in that form. He voted YES both times. Roll call 145 · Roll call 190 Why this answer He promised not to support a final reconciliation bill containing any reduction in Medicaid coverage, and he voted for a final reconciliation bill that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would leave about 7.5 million fewer people covered by Medicaid by 2034. His answer, in his own words: "Throughout this reconciliation process, I successfully negotiated with my colleagues, with leadership, and with the White House to block any proposals attempting to lower the provider tax or FMAP percentages. Every American citizen who is eligible for Medicaid will continue to receive those benefits." (his statement on the vote.) His position is that the coverage figures come from people the program was not meant to cover. The CBO figure and his statement are both on this page; the disagreement is real, and you can decide which reading you accept. The CBO numbers as reported are here.
	Yes	H.R. 7008 — the ban on members trading stocksHouse roll call 280 · July 22, 2026
The promise, in his words "Members of Congress should not be allowed to profit off the information they are entrusted with – this is a belief I have held since before taking office, and this belief has not changed." Official press release announcing his TRUST Act, May 6, 2025. Read the release The vote that tests it H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act — House roll call 280, July 22, 2026. Passed 232–198. Its official long title: "To amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes." A yes meant: put new limits on stock holdings and trading by members of Congress, their spouses and their dependents. A no meant: leave the current rules in place. He voted YES. Official House roll call 280 · The bill on Congress.gov Why this answer He said members should not be able to trade on what they know, and when a bill restricting member stock trading finally got a floor vote, he voted for it. What this does not test: his own trading history is a separate public record kept in House financial disclosures. This page measures votes (plus the cosponsor lists noted above), for everyone on it.
	Yes	H.R. 27 — the HALT Fentanyl Act, drug penaltiesHouse roll call 33 · February 6, 2025
The promise, in his words "I will always stand with law enforcement and ensure they have the resources to combat the fentanyl crisis and keep our community safe." Campaign site issues section, robforpa.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act — House roll call 33, February 6, 2025. Passed 312–108. A yes meant: permanently place fentanyl-related substances in the strictest drug category, so prosecutors keep those penalties. A no meant: let the temporary classification expire or be handled another way. He voted YES, and again on the Senate version (S. 331, roll call 166, June 12, 2025). Official House roll call 33 · The bill on Congress.gov Why this answer The fentanyl bills that reached the floor both got his yes, which matches what he said he would do. What this does not test: "resources" means money for police departments, and this bill is about drug classification, not funding. No standalone police-funding bill has had a roll call this Congress.
	Can't be tested	No vote can test thisThe words have no fixed meaning, so any vote could be called keeping it
The promise, in his words "I will vote for commonsense policies that unleash the American economy and get Pennsylvania back to work." Campaign site issues section, robforpa.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. View the snapshot Why this answer No vote can prove or disprove this, because "commonsense" and "unleash" have no fixed meaning — any vote he casts can be described as keeping it. We leave it on the list so you can see how much of a campaign page is not actually a promise.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

Democrat · Washington's 3rd district · in office since January 3, 2023

7 promises: 3 kept, 3 no vote yet, 1 can't be tested. Tap a promise for the quote, the source and the reasoning.

The promise	Kept?	See the vote
	Yes	H.R. 27 — the HALT Fentanyl Act, drug penaltiesHouse roll call 33 · February 6, 2025
The promise, in her words "Marie will always fight to make sure state and local law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to keep Fentanyl and illegal guns off of our streets." Campaign site issues page, marieforcongress.com/issues — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024; the same wording is still on the live page today. Snapshot · Live page The vote that tests it H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act — House roll call 33, February 6, 2025, passed 312–108. A yes meant: permanently place fentanyl-related substances in the strictest drug category. A no meant: let the temporary classification expire or be handled another way. She voted YES. She also voted yes on the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act (H.R. 747, roll call 220, September 2, 2025). Official House roll call 33 · The bill on Congress.gov Why this answer Both fentanyl bills that reached the floor got her yes, including one that split her own party almost evenly — 98 Democrats voted yes and 107 voted no on the HALT Fentanyl Act. What this does not test: same gap as with Rep. Bresnahan — the "resources" half is about police funding, and no standalone police-funding bill has had a roll call.
	Yes	H.R. 7008 — the ban on members trading stocksHouse roll call 280 · July 22, 2026
The promise, in her words "She also believes that we need to ban our Representatives from other behaviors that erode public trust, like trading individual stocks." Campaign site issues page — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. Snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act — House roll call 280, July 22, 2026, passed 232–198. Same bill as Rep. Bresnahan's promise 5. A yes meant: put new limits on stock holdings and trading by members of Congress, their spouses and their dependents. A no meant: leave the current rules in place. She voted YES. Official House roll call 280 · The bill on Congress.gov Why this answer She said representatives should be banned from trading individual stocks, and she voted for the bill that restricts it. Both members on this page made this promise, and both voted the same way.
	Yes	H.R. 4758 — repealing the home energy rebatesHouse roll call 78 · February 25, 2026
The promise, in her words "Marie has also championed tax-rebates for energy efficiency upgrades for working class families, like weather skirting for mobile homes." Campaign site issues page — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. Snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 4758, the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act — House roll call 78, February 25, 2026. Passed 210–199, 1 present. Its official long title: "To repeal provisions of Public Law 117–169 relating to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification, and for other purposes." Public Law 117–169 is the 2022 law that created those home-energy rebates. A yes meant: repeal the home-electrification rebates. A no meant: keep them. She voted NO. Official House roll call 78 · The bill on Congress.gov Why this answer She said she championed those rebates, and when the House voted on repealing them she voted against repeal.
	No vote yet	No vote tests this yetNo national abortion ban has reached a House roll call
The promise, in her words "Marie will do whatever it takes to prevent a national abortion ban, which would override the will of the people of Washington State." Campaign site issues page — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. Snapshot The vote that tests it There isn't one. No national abortion ban has been brought to a House roll-call vote in this Congress. She has voted on related bills — she voted no on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 21, roll call 27, January 23, 2025) — but that bill is not a ban, so using it as the test would be us putting words in her mouth. Why this answer The thing she promised to stop has not been put in front of her, so there is nothing to score.
	No vote yet	No vote tests this yetNo right-to-repair bill has reached a House roll call
The promise, in her words "She is working to stop manufacturers of farm and consumer equipment from gouging their customers by forcing them to pay the original manufacturer for repairs." Campaign site issues page — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. Snapshot The vote that tests it There isn't one. We searched all 1,563 recorded House and Senate votes in our records for this Congress: no right-to-repair bill has reached a roll-call vote. She has pushed the issue in committee and in bills she introduced, but this scorecard only counts votes, and there has been no vote. Why this answer Committee work and introduced bills are real work, but they are not a recorded vote, so this promise stays untested by the only measure this page uses.
	No vote yet	No vote tests this yetNo roll call has cut a Social Security benefit
The promise, in her words "Marie supports common sense legislation to strengthen the Social Security program for the long-run without raising the retirement age or reducing benefits." Campaign site issues page — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. Snapshot The vote that tests it There isn't one — the same finding as Rep. Bresnahan's promise 3. No House roll call in this Congress has raised the retirement age or cut a Social Security benefit. Why this answer Two members from different parties made nearly the same promise, and the record answers both of them the same way: nobody has been asked to vote on it.
	Can't be tested	No vote can test thisWho funds a campaign is an FEC record, not a roll call
The promise, in her words "Her campaign doesn't take money from special interests (like drug companies)." Campaign site issues page — Internet Archive snapshot, October 20, 2024. Snapshot Why this answer This is a promise about fundraising, not about voting, so no roll call can check it — the record that would check it is her campaign finance filing. Her FEC filings are here, and Rep. Bresnahan's are here. If this tool ever scores money promises, it needs a second, separate engine.

One thing worth saying about the two scorecards

Rep. Bresnahan has more scored results, including the one "broke," and Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez has more "no vote yet." That is not a statement about the parties. It is a statement about how the promises were written. Rep. Bresnahan signed a dated letter making one very specific commitment about one specific bill, and that bill then came to a vote — which is exactly the situation that produces a clear answer. Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez's page is written in general terms — "fighting to," "working to" — which produces fewer clean tests. A member who writes vaguer promises gets fewer verdicts, in either party. That is a real limitation of this method and you should know it before you read anything into the counts.

Where every fact here came from

What	Source
Who the members are, their districts and IDs	House Clerk member data
Every roll-call vote and how they voted	House Clerk roll call votes (the voter tool's existing local copy: 1,563 votes, January 3, 2025 – September 15, 2026)
Bill numbers, titles and vote counts	Congress.gov, cross-checked against GovTrack
Campaign promises as written before the election	Internet Archive snapshots, dated on each card
Promises made in office	The members' own official House websites

Nothing on this page is paraphrased into a promise. If we could not quote it and link it, it is not here.

Sample scorecard, last updated September 20, 2026. It covers two members of the House and recorded House votes from January 3, 2025 through September 15, 2026; votes after that date are not reflected here. It is a sample, not a full record of either member. Tap a promise to open the quote, the source and the reasoning.

← Back to the voter tool