Look, trying to keep track of who is voting for what in Washington right now feels like trying to assemble furniture in the dark. It’s messy. Just this week, the Senate finally pushed through a massive three-bill funding package (H.R. 6938) with an 82-15 vote. It covers the heavy hitters: Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water, and the Interior. If you’re wondering which Democrats actually crossed the aisle or held the line, the reality is a bit more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no" list.
Most Democrats eventually hopped on board to avoid a total government meltdown, but a specific group of progressives and fiscal hawks dug their heels in. Honestly, it wasn't just about the money; it was about protecting specific programs from the steep cuts the Trump administration was pushing for.
📖 Related: Karine Jean-Pierre Net Worth: What Most People Get Wrong
The Senate Breakdown: Who Said Yes?
When the Senate vote finally went down on January 15, 2026, 35 Democrats (plus Independent Angus King) voted in favor. They weren't exactly doing backflips over it, but the alternative—a partial shutdown on January 30—was worse. Leaders like Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) were pretty vocal about the fact that while the bill wasn't perfect, it saved things like the Weatherization Assistance Program and kept NASA's budget from being gutted by 24%.
Basically, the "yes" crowd saw this as a defensive win. They managed to protect research funding for the National Science Foundation and kept the lights on for Tribal programs.
The Democrats Who Voted No
The "no" votes are actually more interesting if you want to see where the internal party friction is. Nine Democrats decided this deal gave up too much. Here is the list of those who voted against the minibus package:
- Michael Bennet (Colorado)
- Cory Booker (New Jersey)
- John Hickenlooper (Colorado)
- George Helmy (New Jersey) — Note: Recently seated
- Ed Markey (Massachusetts)
- Chris Murphy (Connecticut)
- Alex Padilla (California)
- Bernie Sanders (Vermont - Independent caucusing with Dems)
- Adam Schiff (California)
- Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)
Why the "no"? For some, like Chris Murphy, the sticking point was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There’s a massive standoff happening because of an ICE-related shooting in Minneapolis, and some Democrats are refusing to sign off on DHS funding without major reforms. Others felt the spending levels for climate initiatives were still too low compared to what was agreed upon in previous years.
The House Situation: A Different Beast
Over in the House, things moved even faster. On January 8, the House cleared that same package with a staggering 397-28 vote. That is about as bipartisan as it gets in 2026. Most House Democrats followed Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ lead. They figured that getting a win on the "power of the purse" was more important than a prolonged fight they might lose.
Then, on January 14, another package (H.R. 7006) focusing on National Security and the State Department passed 341-79. Again, a huge chunk of Democrats voted "aye." They basically trade-off: they accepted some Republican language on "America First" foreign policy in exchange for keeping family planning funding and international development accounts alive.
The Moderate Factor
You've gotta look at the "swing" Democrats too. Folks like Jared Golden from Maine and Mary Peltola from Alaska have been much more willing to jump on these budget bills early. They’re playing the long game, trying to show their purple districts that they can actually make the government function.
What Most People Get Wrong About This Bill
People think a budget vote is just about "more money" or "less money." It’s not. It’s about riders.
The Democrats who voted for the budget bill were largely focused on stripping out what they call "poison pills." These are little bits of policy tucked into the spending text—things like banning certain healthcare procedures or stripping First Amendment protections. By voting "yes," many mainstream Democrats argued they successfully blocked dozens of these riders.
💡 You might also like: Was There Just an Emergency Alert? Why Your Phone Just Buzzed
The dissenters, however, argue that by passing any bill that doesn't fully fund their priorities, the party is slowly ceding ground.
What This Means for You
The fact that this passed means the government won't fully go dark on January 30. Six of the twelve major spending bills are now basically set for the rest of the 2026 fiscal year.
Actionable Insights:
- Watch the DHS Vote: This is the next big hurdle. If you work in a sector tied to border security or transportation, pay attention to Chris Murphy and the progressive holdouts. That’s where the next shutdown risk lives.
- Check Your Local Funding: Because this bill passed, funding for things like the Army Corps of Engineers (flood prevention) and rural energy assistance is now locked in. If you’re a contractor or a local official, those funds are finally "real."
- Follow the "Minibus" Strategy: Congress is done with "omnibus" bills. They are doing these smaller "minibuses" now. It makes it easier for individual Democrats to vote "no" on one but "yes" on another without crashing the whole economy.
If you’re looking to contact your representative about how they voted, you can check the official Roll Call at clerk.house.gov for the House or senate.gov for the Senate. Most of them are actually quite happy to explain their "why," even if you don't agree with it.
Keep an eye on the Labor and HHS bill next. That’s where the real fireworks over healthcare and education spending are going to happen.