Composite 5.19 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Support is foreclosed by a confirmed capping severity flag (process subversion), independent of the composite. At credit 555 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Burchett is a verified signatory of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (126 House Republicans), which asked the Supreme Court to set aside certified electoral votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This is a legal-on-its-face act aimed at defeating a constitutional purpose, the certified, peaceful transfer of power, and is the paradigm criterion-8 process-subversion conduct. It floors M01 and M04 and forecloses author-verdict support. (The separate Jan-6 floor objection is the process mechanism and is not itself counted as a flag.)
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), U.S. Supreme Court No. 22O155 · Insurrection Exposed, Burchett, Tim (amicus + certification objection)
A capping flag forecloses an Author's Verdict of "supported" regardless of the composite; a terminal flag suspends the number entirely. Conduct is weighed on documented evidence, applied symmetrically. How flags work →
No military or uniformed service on record. Career path: Tennessee General Assembly (House 1995-1999, Senate 1999-2010), Knox County Mayor 2010-2018, U.S. House since 2019. Service to country is honored as context, not scored; none applies here.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 3 | why?CAPPED at the criterion-8 floor. Burchett signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral votes from four states, a legal-on-its-face filing aimed at defeating the constitutional purpose it invoked (a peaceful, certified transfer of power). That is process subversion, the gravest oath-fidelity failure the standard measures, and it floors this measure regardless of the rest of the record. The post-riot certification objection is the constitutional process mechanism and is NOT separately counted here; the amicus signature is the capping conduct. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Mixed. The Lugar BPI placed him slightly above the historical average (~+0.044, mid-pack), and his signature reform, the congressional stock-trading ban / Restore Trust in Congress Act, is a genuinely bipartisan effort co-led with Democrats (Magaziner, Spanberger-era coalition). Against that, his overall cross-party legislating is modest. Honest middle: real bipartisan instances on his core issue, ordinary otherwise. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as people who do not belong. His public persona is folksy and combative-toward-institutions ('the swamp,' 'the sewer') rather than dehumanizing toward persons. No criterion-10 enemy-making pattern found. Upper-middle, not high, the populist anti-Washington framing carries some us/them edge but stays aimed at the institution, not the personhood of opponents. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?The same criterion-8 process-subversion conduct that floors M01 also lands here: joining a legal effort to use state power (the Court) to overturn certified results in states he did not represent is an abuse-of-power instance against the electoral process itself. No other documented weaponization of state power against rivals, but the amicus is sufficient to drive this measure low. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetoric is blunt, colloquial, and aimed at the institution ('crooked as a dog's leg,' 'a scam being played on the American public') rather than at the dignity of named opponents. No sustained inflammatory or dehumanizing pattern. Upper-middle: heated populist register, but within bounds of ordinary political speech. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No formal House Ethics finding or sanction on record. His self-imposed posture on financial conduct (does not trade individual stocks; champions a trading ban with no blind-trust loophole) is an affirmative integrity signal. Held at upper-middle for ordinary baseline; nothing penalizing, one genuine positive. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?M07 rewards calling out one's OWN side at cost. Burchett's signature crusade, banning congressional stock trading, explicitly indicts his own institution and members of his own party who profit from it, at the cost of leadership goodwill. That is a real own-side call-out. Offsetting it: he did NOT call out his own side on the central oath question (the 2020 election challenge), where he joined rather than dissented. Net upper-middle. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented misuse of office discretion for personal benefit, and his anti-self-dealing reform posture is consistent. No purest-form discretion test (sacrificing personal advantage when nothing compelled it) on record either. Ordinary middle on documented conduct. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap; the off-camera reputation is broadly consistent with the plainspoken on-camera persona. Insufficient distinguishing evidence either way, ordinary middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Constituent-facing transparency work (stock-ban reform, UAP disclosure advocacy) tracks a genuine accountability-to-the-public theme rather than donor capture. No notable donor-vs-constituent divergence on record. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. Affirmatively the opposite: he is a leading sponsor of legislation to ban members from trading individual stocks (no blind-trust loophole) and to tighten transaction-reporting deadlines. The cleanest available conduct on this measure; held below apex only for absence of a longer verified track record. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Generally respects floor and committee process; the populist anti-institution register is rhetorical, not procedural sabotage. No pattern of decorum-breaking obstruction on record. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern in his legislative communications. His UAP/UFO disclosure claims are framed as government secrecy and his own belief rather than asserted verified fact, and are not scored as policy. The 2020 election-challenge participation is captured under M01/M04 as process conduct, not re-counted here. Ordinary middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrates working substantive command on his focus areas, congressional ethics/financial reform and oversight, with concrete legislative product. Breadth across the full portfolio is modest. Upper-middle: substance on core issues, lighter elsewhere. [source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | Signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral votes from four states ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, defeating a constitutional purpose with a legal-on-its-face filing | None applicable to capping conduct; the post-riot certification objection is the process mechanism and is not separately counted |
| M04 | Same Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature, using the Court to overturn results in states he did not represent ↳ Abuse of state power against the electoral process | No other documented weaponization of state power against rivals |
| M02 | Modest overall cross-party legislating; Lugar BPI only slightly above historical average ↳ limited bipartisan output outside his signature reform | Genuine bipartisan coalition on the stock-trading ban with Democratic co-leads |
| M07 | Did not dissent from his own side on the central 2020 oath question, joined the election challenge ↳ own-side call-out absent on the highest-stakes issue | Real own-side call-out on congressional self-enrichment, at cost to leadership goodwill |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 3 | why?Attributes: Loyalty to the oath, Steadiness, Selfless Service. The December 2020 amicus signature is a direct break in loyalty to the constitutional order he swore to defend, the single most load-bearing fact in this pillar, pulling it to the floor band. Plainspoken authenticity and a refusal to perform on financial ethics keep it off the absolute bottom. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection. Real on his signature cause, he genuinely walks the talk on not trading individual stocks and indicts his own institution. Held to the middle by the absence of any reckoning with his role in the 2020 election challenge. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Uses his platform for public-facing accountability (ban on member trading, transparency push). The drag is that the amicus represents influence used against the electoral process rather than to protect it. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice. A genuine reformer's streak on congressional self-dealing weighs positive; the process-subversion participation is a durable asterisk on the legacy that caps the upside. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 16/40 |
Total 16/40. The financial-reform integrity is real and is credited; the 2020 process-subversion conduct is the dominant fact and holds the trust pillar at the floor. A reformer on one front, a participant in election subversion on another, the standard records both.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Congress has been enriching itself on the taxpayers' dime for too dadgum long. It's as crooked as a dog's leg.”
Press push for the Restore Trust in Congress Act, the congressional stock-trading ban · The Hill · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“When you see a member of this body making four, five, 600 trades a year, you know something's wrong. It's a scam that's being played on the American public.”
Floor remarks on banning member stock trading · NPR · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“Signatory, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to set aside certified electoral votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.”
Amicus brief of 126 House Republicans, U.S. Supreme Court No. 22O155 · Supreme Court docket · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Timothy Floyd "Tim" Burchett (born August 25, 1964). U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 2nd Congressional District (Knoxville area) since 2019. Previously: Tennessee House of Representatives (1995-1999), Tennessee Senate (1999-2010), and Knox County Mayor (2010-2018). In the 119th Congress serves on the House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, Foreign Affairs, and Transportation and Infrastructure; named chair of the Oversight DOGE subcommittee in January 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index roughly mid-pack, slightly above the historical average (~+0.044, 118th Congress). Signature issue area is congressional financial ethics: an original cosponsor of the Restore Trust in Congress Act (H.R.5106) to ban members, spouses, and dependents from owning or trading individual stocks with no blind-trust loophole, and sponsor of legislation tightening periodic-transaction-report deadlines. Also a prominent advocate for UAP/UFO government-transparency disclosure. Policy positions themselves are not scored; only conduct and character against the oath.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional-fidelity fact is negative: Burchett signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (126 House Republicans) urging the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral votes from four states, and after the Court dismissed it and after the Capitol was attacked, he objected to certifying the 2020 results. The amicus signature is scored as criterion-8 process subversion (capping); the floor objection is treated as the constitutional process mechanism and is not separately penalized. On the positive side, his self-policing posture on congressional financial conduct is an institutional-accountability contribution.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Plainspoken, folksy, and combative toward Washington as an institution ("the swamp," "the sewer," "crooked as a dog's leg") rather than dehumanizing toward persons. No documented sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern under criterion 10, the heat is aimed at the institution and at self-enrichment, not at the personhood of opponents. Within the bounds of ordinary, if blunt, political speech.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on record. Affirmatively the opposite of a fiduciary concern on financial conduct: Burchett is a leading sponsor of a ban on member stock trading (rejecting the blind-trust loophole) and of faster transaction reporting, and states he does not trade individual stocks himself. The strongest positive in the record.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (Process Subversion), confirmed, for signing the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, a legal-on-its-face power used to attempt to defeat a certified election. This caps M01/M04 to the floor band and forecloses author-verdict support regardless of composite. No criterion-10 (enemy-making/incitement) pattern found. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
Burchett is a genuine reformer on one front and a participant in election subversion on another, and the standard records both. The strongest fact in his favor is real: a leading, walk-the-talk crusade to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, indicting his own institution and party at cost to leadership goodwill, that earns honest marks on own-side accountability and fiduciary conduct. But the single most load-bearing fact for the oath is his December 2020 signature on the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, an attempt to use the Court to discard certified electoral votes. Under the criterion-8 capping rule, that floors his core oath-fidelity measures and forecloses support regardless of where the composite would otherwise land. A mixed record with one disqualifying constitutional fact.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Reps) · Congress.gov member profile
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · The Hill / NPR, stock-trading ban advocacy
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Texas v. PA amicus (126 Reps, SCOTUS docket) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.