Loading record
Public disputes concerning political parties, public officials, institutions, political conduct, and governance in the United States.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
5 statements on this page. Dates: May 13, 2026 to October 1, 2026
5 matching statements. Dates: May 13, 2026 to October 1, 2026
5 published statements. Dates: May 13, 2026 to October 1, 2026
3 published statements. Dates: May 13, 2026 to September 24, 2026
3 statements on this page. Dates: May 13, 2026 to September 24, 2026
Role at the time: U.S. Senator, Florida
Statement summary
Rick Scott voted nay on H.Con.Res. 89, a vote against directing the removal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran.
“On the Concurrent Resolution H.Con.Res. 89: A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”
Official Senate roll call on H.Con.Res. 89, a concurrent resolution directing the President under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Rejected 49-50 on September 24, 2026. Fetterman was the only Democratic nay; Republicans Collins, Murkowski, Paul and Tillis voted yea; Alsobrooks did not vote.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Voted against directing the removal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran, a vote to let U.S. involvement continue without congressional authorization.
Role at the time: U.S. Senator, Florida
Statement summary
Rick Scott voted Nay on H.Con.Res. 86, the Senate resolution directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
“On the Concurrent Resolution H.Con.Res. 86: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”
Official Senate roll call on H.Con.Res. 86, directing the President under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Agreed to 50-48 on June 23, 2026 — the first Iran war powers resolution to pass both chambers. Republicans Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski and Paul voted yea; Fetterman was the only Democratic nay.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)A nay vote opposed the resolution directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, allowing U.S. military operations in the war to continue.
Role at the time: U.S. Senator for Florida at the statement date.
Statement summary
Scott supports continuing the military campaign until the United States achieves its nuclear-related objectives, with withdrawal afterward.
“We must win. Nothing less than victory is an option for America.”
His signed op-ed acknowledges gas and fertilizer costs while defending the campaign’s purpose. He supports Trump and military operations, urges victory and says withdrawal should follow achievement of the objectives.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Relative to U.S. military involvement in the 2026 Iran war, Scott supports continuing the military campaign until the United States achieves its nuclear-related objectives, with withdrawal afterward.
2 published statements. Dates: September 17, 2026 to October 1, 2026
2 statements on this page. Dates: September 17, 2026 to October 1, 2026
Role at the time: U.S. senator from Florida
Statement summary
Scott supports reducing unnecessary senior leadership in principle, while saying he has not seen Hegseth's plan.
“most organizations have become top-heavy”
The Hill reports interviews with lawmakers about the proposed 20% reduction. Scott says he has not seen the plan. Budd asks for the rationale. Slotkin and Blumenthal criticize the changes. The article was updated at 6:24 p.m. EDT. It does not identify completed position eliminations.
Scott endorses efficiency and reducing top-heavy leadership, but qualifies his assessment by saying he has not seen the specific plan.
Role at the time: United States senator from Florida, speaking to reporters
Statement summary
Sen. Rick Scott split his answer on AI regulation. On children's safety he said Congress can act now, that he has introduced a bill and others have too, and that children must be told they are talking to a computer rather than a person and that AI systems cannot encourage them to take their own lives. On what he called destroying mankind, he said the companies need to do the right thing on their own, that Congress will not get smart enough to regulate them and will not get something done. The clip circulated widely with only the self-regulation passage quoted.
“I think first we need to be focused on kids safety. I think that's something we actually can do right now. I've got a bill. Others have bills. … But with regard to destroying mankind, these companies need to do the right thing on their own. We're not going to get smart enough to regulate them. We're not going to get something done up here to regulate them. But with regard to our kids, we need to make sure … they know that this is not a human being these kids are talking to, and they cannot be teaching our kids to commit suicide.”
Forty-five-second clip of Sen. Rick Scott posted by journalist Aaron Rupar on September 17, 2026 at 3:54 PM ET. Rupar aggregates broadcast and Capitol footage; the clip does not identify the programme or setting, and Scott's reference to getting "something done up here" suggests Capitol Hill. The post's text quotes only the self-regulation passage; the audio shows Scott bracketing it with support for child-safety legislation he says he has already introduced, so the clip as a whole is materially broader than the quoted excerpt. Scott made a related argument to The Hill on September 15, asking whether Congress is capable of regulating AI when it cannot pass a budget; that is a separate statement and is not recorded here.
Scott combines materially different positions on it: he supports federal legislation on child safety and says he has already introduced a bill, while rejecting federal action on catastrophic risk and directing that to industry self-regulation. That is the definition of “Mixed or conditional”. The closest competing label is condemns, which is how this case classifies speakers who reject the proposition outright, including Huang (727), Johnson (729) and Zuckerberg (939); it loses because Scott does not reject federal safeguards as such but carves out a category where he is actively legislating. Note that the widely circulated excerpt carries only the self-regulation half, which on its own would read as condemns; the full clip does not support that.
