U.S. Senator, Missouri · Republican · in the Senate since Jan. 3, 2023
GPO · public domain
The Executive Summary
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R–MO) ranks No. 56 of 91 senators on this site's legislator rubric — the published list of what a grade is made of and how much each part counts, set before any grade was computed and identical for every senator — built on the 53% of the rubric that can be measured today. In the 119th Congress, Schmitt has missed 1.2% of recorded votes — 11 of the 897 roll calls the Senate printed their name on, below the 2.1% median for sitting senators, and the 69th-highest rate of 100. Schmitt is recorded on 8 tracked major laws: for 5, against 3. In the 119th Congress, Schmitt has sponsored 56 bills and resolutions, spread across 21 of the Congressional Research Service's topic labels; the two largest groups are Immigration (7 of 56) and Government Operations and Politics (6 of 56). A filing label is where the Research Service shelves a measure so it can be found again — it says what a bill is about as filed, not what it did — and sponsoring is not passing. Every figure is drawn from the cited public record; the full breakdown — including what can't yet be measured fairly — is below.
Graded on 2 of 4 components — 53.3% of the rubric. The bar below is the whole rubric: each segment’s width is its published weight, its colour is the block’s own score. Hatched slots were not scored, and their weight is held back rather than handed to the blocks we could measure.
Block score:below chamber middleabovenot scored — no evidence, not a score of zero
Rubric component
Weight
Block score
Into the grade
Missouri: how the state moved on their watch reserved
the scored Missouri window inside their Senate service is too short to attribute a trend
33%
—
—
Bills they move (LES, 118th Congress)
40%
−0.32σ
−0.130
Fiscal votes (CBO-scored laws) reserved
needs recorded votes on at least 3 laws carrying a CBO deficit estimate; 2 so far
13%
—
—
Attendance (missed votes)
13%
0.00σ
0.000
Grade — the measured parts, added up
−0.130 + 0.000 = −0.130
53.3% counted
−0.130σ
A hatched slot is not a bad score, and not a zero. It is weight the rubric set aside because the evidence to fill it does not exist yet, and nothing on this page says which way Schmitt would have scored on it. That weight is never redistributed to the blocks we could measure, so the σ above is built from 53.3% of the rubric and two members at the same σ were not necessarily judged on the same evidence. The weights are preregistered and identical for all 91 graded senators — this measures a record against a fixed rubric, not a person’s worth or effort. Block scores print to two decimals as they do everywhere on the site and contributions to three, so multiplying a printed score by its printed weight can land a thousandth off the row beside it; the last column is the export’s own figure, and it is what the total adds. How the grade works →
Eric Schmitt
U.S. Senator · Missouri · Republican · in the Senate since Jan. 2023
Overall grade · among senators
−0.13σ
No. 56 of 91 · 53% of the grade measured
How this grade is built
40%Bills they move (LES, 118th Congress)−0.13
33%Missouri: how it moved on their watchreserved
13%Fiscal votes (CBO-scored laws)reserved
13%Attendance (missed votes)0.00
Missouri outcomes during their Senate service · scored 2023–2025
Category
Latest
Score vs. peers
Education scale score
270.4 ’24
Too early
Air quality AQI
42 ’24
Insufficient data
Water quality % of systems with a violation
5.7 ’25
+0.10σ*
Unemployment %
4 ’25
−0.02σ*
Health coverage % of adults 18-64 uninsured
8.2 ’24
Insufficient data
Tax burden % of personal income
4.4 ’24
+0.49σ*
Energy cost cents/kWh
12.9 ’24
Insufficient data
Cost of living index, US=100
90.8 ’24
Insufficient data
Homicide age-adjusted deaths per 100,000
9.4 ’24
Insufficient data
Teen births per 1,000 females 15-19
15.9 ’24
Insufficient data
Wellbeing mean poor-mental-health days of 30
5.4 ’24
Insufficient data
Obesity % of adults
34.6 ’24
Too early
Early literacy % of 4th-graders below basic
42.1 ’24
Too early
Gun deaths age-adjusted deaths per 100,000
19.6 ’24
Insufficient data
Food-aid access index (higher = easier access)
0.7 ’23
Too early
Jobless-benefit access % of unemployed receiving UI
16.2 ’24
Insufficient data
Scoring windows run 2023–2025 and differ by metric — none starts before 2023, the year Schmitt entered the Senate. “Latest” is a different year by metric (2023–2025); every row states its own. *thin data (under 3 points). Each row’s window, source and last-checked date are behind its ? button.
Missed votes 119th Congress only, not lifetime career · “Not Voting” only; “Present” is a recorded position · U.S. Senate roll callsThe roll call records whether a member voted, never why they did not.
1.2%11 of 897 roll calls
Party-line votes share of their Yea/Nay votes cast with their own party’s majority — agreement with their party, not a left-right position · 119th Congress only, not lifetime career · U.S. Senate roll calls
99.3%880 of 886 recorded votes
Promises kept
In human review
A senator’s constituency is the whole state, so they are scored on the same verified state outcomes as the governor — ranked against other senators — alongside their own legislative record. Influence is shared with 99 colleagues and Governor Mike Kehoe; the score shows relative movement, not sole credit. Methodology v3.0
The Rundown
No. 56 of 91 senators — on the 53% of the grade we can measure.
Bills that move. A Legislative Effectiveness Score of 0.58 — the scale is set so each chamber averages 1.00, and it counts only the bills a member sponsors themselves and how far each one gets. The grade scores that against members of the same chamber on the same side of the majority, so it reflects lawmaking rather than who holds the gavel: the same score sits differently in the majority than out of it. Measured over the 118th Congress, now complete.
Not counted — 47% of the rubric. fiscal votes (13%): needs recorded votes on at least 3 laws carrying a CBO deficit estimate; 2 so far · state/district outcomes (33%): the scored Missouri window inside their Senate service is too short to attribute a trend
So this is a ranking of 2 things, not a verdict on a career. Senators can also be scored on their state's outcomes — Schmitt's state block is reserved for the reason above. Everything reserved above publishes the moment it can be measured fairly, and never before.
When Schmitt first entered Congress in 2023, in the Senate, the federal debt stood at $30.93 trillion (end of fiscal 2022; Treasury). As of 2026-09-17 it is $40.09 trillion (Treasury, daily). That rise spans presidents, majorities and economies — it belongs to no single member, which is why it is context here and part of no grade. What is Schmitt’s own: their recorded votes when the major fiscal bills came through, beside what the Congressional Budget Office estimated each law would do to deficits.
Total public debt outstanding, fiscal 2022–present, in nominal dollars — no adjustment for inflation or the size of the economy, so early decades understate their era’s burden. Y-axis starts at zero. Source: Treasury. Shaded spans and dashed marks (dated on the rail below the chart): exogenous events — recessions as dated by the NBER, the COVID-19 emergency as dated by the WHO, and NOAA-recorded $100B+ hurricanes — the outlier years are theirs, not any one officeholder's.
Reading these: a baseline is CBO’s projection of what the government would spend and collect if the law never changed — the measuring stick a bill’s cost is measured against. Choose a different stick and the same law scores differently, which is why CBO publishes more than one and why each figure below carries the basis it was scored on. The differences are in the sticks, not in the arithmetic.
Debt figures as of the data refresh on 2026-09-21. These same votes feed the grade’s fiscal-conduct block (10%, methodology v2.5) — the debt itself feeds nothing: it belongs to no single member, and only their own votes are scored. The change is preregistered and dated in the changelog.
Integrity Record
facts from official records — not a score
No checkable commitment by Schmitt has been tested by a recorded vote in the harvested window. This panel holds facts, not a score: what Schmitt committed to on the record in words a computer can test, what their name was formally on, and what evenly-bipartisan bodies or courts have found — each line beside the record it rests on. Honesty is not numerically scored on this site; adjudicated findings, when final, cap the grade under a preregistered rule. Read the full rulebook.
1. Checkable commitments
spoken floor pledges a computer can test — window 2026-03-01 to 2026-08-31
No checkable commitment from Schmitt compiled in this window. 7 pledge-shaped sentences by Schmitt were harvested and excluded with published reason codes (hedged, no named bill, reported speech, and the like) — excluded means the computer could not test it, not that it was broken or kept. A commitment appears here only when it names its own test — a specific bill, in the sentence itself — and the test can be read from a recorded vote or the bill’s official record. Vague promises are listed in the site-wide exceptions feed, never rated.
Transparency context: Schmitt spoke ~28,077 attributed words on the floor in this window, with 2.49 pledge-shaped sentences per 10,000 words. Strategic silence is visible here without being scored.
2. Name-vote consistency
formal endorsements vs. final-passage votes, same text only
No qualifying endorsement-vote pair for Schmitt in the 119th Congress so far. Qualifying is rare by design: the pair counts only when the text at the vote is essentially the text they signed, and committee amendment breaks that on most bills that reach the floor — every excluded pair is in the public exceptions feed with its reason.
3. Adjudicated record
findings by courts and evenly-bipartisan bodies — the only tier that can cap a grade
Record search: 1 of 6 sources connected — House and Senate discipline votes (roll-call record). Not yet connected: Federal court judgments (deception statutes, ADJ-3 map); House Ethics Committee public reports; Senate Select Committee on Ethics public actions; FEC enforcement (MURs with admission or knowing-and-willful finding); GAO / Inspectors General findings naming members. Within the connected sources, Schmitt has 0 qualifying events (as does every member — no adjudication event has scored site-wide). A final Tier 1 finding caps the overall grade at F, Tier 2 at C−, Tier 3 at B — caps only, never bonuses, under preregistered rule ADJ-7.
What this panel measures: matches between Schmitt’s formal signed acts, spoken checkable commitments, and the official record — plus findings by courts and evenly-bipartisan bodies. What it does not measure: truthfulness of speech in general, campaign promises, effort that leaves no record, or motive. Items the rules cannot decide from records are excluded and listed, never guessed. Dispute anything: challenge@politicalgrades.com.
These are the major bills this site tracks line by line — not a full voting record. A member casts hundreds of votes a Congress; these 8 are the ones whose spending has been extracted and cited from the enacted text.
Every date links to the official roll call in the chamber where Schmitt cast the vote. “Did not vote” is not “absent” — the record shows no vote was cast and gives no reason, which is often illness, travel or a paired vote. Nothing on this table is counted toward or against Schmitt’s grade.
These pies aggregate the largest verified spending items — appropriations and mandatory outlays — in the bills Schmitt cast a recorded vote on, sliced by category, every dollar quoted from the bill text. Three kinds of dollar are excluded, exactly as on the bill pages: authorizations (permission for a future bill to spend, not money), guarantee ceilings (the government backstopping private loans, no cash out) and pay-fors (the taxes or savings that offset a cost, which is money coming in rather than going out). This shows what the bills contained, by Schmitt’s own votes — not a claim that Schmitt wrote the spending or that it did or didn’t work. Every dollar in these pies is quoted from the bill text and cited, item by item, on the bill’s own page.
recorded on 8 of 30 tracked laws · 56 measures filed
Two different kinds of record sit below and they are not interchangeable. The first is a recorded vote on a law that passed, whose dollars this site has read out of the enacted text and quoted line by line. The second is a measure Schmitt filed — a document introduced, which most often goes no further than a committee referral. A vote is not authorship: nothing here says Schmitt wrote the spending in any of these laws, and nothing here says the money did or did not work. And a filed bill carries no verified money breakdown at all — this site has read exactly 31 bills line by line, and a measure outside that 31 appears below as a title and a filing label, nothing more.
The tracked laws — Schmitt’s recorded position, and where the money went
H.R. 5895Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019 (Public Law 115-244)not yet in Congress$266.2B
Continuous service began Jan. 3, 2023; the last chamber vote on this law was Sept. 13, 2018.
Recorded on 8 of 30. 22 of these roll calls were taken before Schmitt was in Congress, so those rows are an absence of opportunity, not an absence of Schmitt. The bars divide each law’s tracked spending — the dollar figures written into the enacted text as exact amounts — which is not the same as the law’s fiscal size; authorisations, ceilings and pay-fors are excluded, and every category is quoted, item by item, on the bill’s own page — each category name under a bar links straight to its cited items there. Colours follow each bill’s own pie, so a category is the same colour here and on the bill page. 31 bills have been read line by line here; 30 of them carry a recorded roll call. H.R. 4820 was reported by committee and never enacted, so no member holds a position on it. Each position’s link to the official roll call is in How Schmitt voted above, and the merged category totals across all of Schmitt’s votes are in What Schmitt voted to fund.
What none of this can tell you is your state’s share. Not one of the 967 verified spending line items across the 31 bills read line by line here names a state, and none states an allocation formula: the enacted text appropriates to accounts and programmes, not to places. Any per-state figure on this page would therefore have to be modelled by us, and a modelled number under a state flag is not a sourced number. So it is not published, and the gap is printed instead.
What Schmitt filed in the 119th Congress
Schmitt filed 56 bills and resolutions in the 119th Congress, catalogued by the Congressional Research Service under 21 filing labels. A policy area is a library catalogue term describing what a measure is about as filed. It is not evidence that anything was addressed, improved or affected — and none of these measures carries a money breakdown on this site.
CRS policy area
Measures filed
Share of Schmitt’s 56
Immigration
7
13%
Government Operations and Politics
6
11%
Health
6
11%
Education
4
7%
International Affairs
4
7%
Armed Forces and National Security
3
5%
Crime and Law Enforcement
3
5%
Law
3
5%
Science, Technology, Communications
3
5%
Taxation
3
5%
Agriculture and Food
2
4%
Public Lands and Natural Resources
2
4%
Sports and Recreation
2
4%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
1
2%
Commerce
1
2%
Congress
1
2%
Economics and Public Finance
1
2%
Energy
1
2%
Environmental Protection
1
2%
Labor and Employment
1
2%
Social Welfare
1
2%
Denominator: Schmitt’s own 56 sponsored measures, of which 56 carried a CRS label when the source was built. Sponsoring is not passing, and volume is not effort. Filing labels come from the Congressional Research Service via the govinfo BILLSTATUS bulk data, as of Sept. 20, 2026; the same totals are read independently from the Congress.gov API and the two pipelines agree on all 531 of 531 members compared. The newest of these measures, each linked to congress.gov with its latest action quoted, are listed in the promise ledger above rather than repeated here.
Became law under Schmitt’s own number: 0 of 46 law-eligible measures (bills and joint resolutions; simple and concurrent resolutions cannot become law). Congress routinely enacts a measure’s text by folding it into another vehicle, and that enactment is credited to the vehicle’s sponsor, not to this one. A low count — or zero — is therefore not evidence of failure and is not printed as one here.
The 43-day shutdown — Schmitt’s record
Funding lapsed at midnight October 1, 2025 and ended November 12, 2025 — 43 days, the longest federal shutdown on record. Congress’s appropriations power makes funding the government its own duty, shared by every member — so every member’s page carries the same record: their recorded votes on H.R. 5371, the funding bill, on both sides of the lapse. Two continuing resolutions were before the Senate during the lapse, and neither could clear a cloture vote for weeks. The Senate rejected funding-advance votes on H.R. 5371 14 times before one was agreed to, and on S. 2882 7 times — both counted the same way from the Senate’s own vote record.
Positions from the chamber’s own roll-call record, staged only after the parsed tallies matched the officially published results exactly. The record states who voted how; it does not assign blame — that judgment is the reader’s.
Total U.S. federal outlays for each fiscal year of Schmitt’s current term. That’s the whole federal budget — mostly Social Security, Medicare, defense, interest on the debt, and prior commitments already on the books before this term began — not money Schmitt personally directed. A president proposes, Congress appropriates, and no single official controls the total.
Nominal dollars — not adjusted for inflation. Bar lengths compare dollars of different years, so a longer bar can be higher prices rather than more spending. The same bars in comparable money — FY2025 dollars, on the government’s own outlay deflator — run $6.47T in FY2023 to $7.01T in FY2025, and FY2023 is only partly inside this term — the share is marked on that bar. Any two fiscal years, deflated and broken out by what the money bought, are at federal spending by year.
FY23
COVID-19$6.13T74% in term−$1.69T deficit
FY24
$6.74T−$1.82T deficit
FY25
$7.01T−$1.77T deficit
Source: OMB Historical Tables, Table 1.1 (Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789-present) · figures · compiled Sept. 21, 2026. Fiscal years run Oct–Sep, so they do not line up with the start of a term — marked above with the share that fell inside this term.
Closed fiscal years published for this term so far: FY2023–FY2025. FY2026 closes Sept. 30, 2026 and OMB has not published it. A short chart here means the term is young and the series stops at the last closed year — not that spending stopped.
How Schmitt is graded
A senator’s constituency is the whole state, so Schmitt is graded on the same verified state outcomes as the governor — measured as the change on their watch versus the other 49 states, capped because influence is shared with 99 colleagues, Governor Mike Kehoe and a world economy. That score is blended with what we can measure of what they personally control: how far the legislation they sponsor actually moves, and — once they hold at least three recorded votes on CBO-scored laws — the deficit footprint of the laws they voted for. Voting alignment is defined in the rubric but reserved, not counted; attendance is counted, from the roll calls the chamber publishes about itself. Every part decomposes on the card above, and the “measured” figure says how much of the grade is real versus still reserved.
Legislative Effectiveness Scores come from the Center for Effective Lawmaking, which benchmarks each chamber’s average to 1.0. The missed-vote and party-line figures are computed by this site from the roll calls the U.S. Senate publishes: every roll call the chamber printed this member’s name on, for this Congress only, with the numerator and denominator shown beside each rate. The roll call records whether a member voted, never why they did not. Independent trackers of the same record are worth reading beside ours — a figure nobody can check against anything is worth less than one that survives comparison: this member on GovTrack, which has tracked Congress independently since 2004 and computes its own figures on its own definitions, so its numbers will not always match these. The Honesty ledger — promises matched against this member’s votes — publishes only with an evidence trail and two agreeing human reviews.
