Composite 4.77 / 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 521 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Dunn is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (filed Dec 11, 2020), in which 126 House Republicans asked the Supreme Court to throw out certified electoral results in four states won by the opposing candidate. This is a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer of power following a certified election. Per Criterion 8 it floors M01 (set to 3), hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of 126 Representatives (SCOTUS docket 22O155) · ProPublica Represent, Trump Texas amicus House members
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 →
- U.S. Army Medical Corps officer; trained as a urologic surgeon
- Served approximately eleven years, reaching the rank of Major
Military service is honored here as context, not as a score. No conduct from the service period is scored as a discretion-test or character event; the badge contextualizes the record without moving the composite.
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?Dunn is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), which asked the
Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four states won by the opposing candidate. That is
a legal-on-its-face filing used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer following a
certified election, and triggers Criterion 8 (process subversion), which floors M01 at 2-3. He also voted
Jan 6, 2021 to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors; the floor objection alone is not
scored as the capping conduct (the certification process is constitutional), but the amicus is. Held at 3
rather than 2 because the conduct was confined to the legal/legislative channel and he did separately condemn
the Capitol violence.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Bipartisan Index scores are below the chamber median (negative composite, ranking in the 140s–180s of the
House across measured congresses), indicating limited cross-aisle bill sponsorship. Not a character failing
in itself, but the across-the-aisle work that would lift this measure is modest. Middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting constituents or opponents as people who do not belong. Standard partisan
framing ("political stunt," "witch-hunt") is policy/process heat, not anti-belonging conduct, and is not
penalized. Upper-middle on the absence of a documented anti-belonging instance, held off the top by the
thin affirmative record of defending opponents' standing.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Criterion 8 hits M04 as well as M01: lending a member's name to a brief seeking to nullify another state's
certified electors is the use of legitimate process to subvert a constitutional outcome. No documented
weaponization of investigative or prosecutorial power against named rivals beyond that, which keeps this above
the floor, but the amicus is a genuine restraint-of-power failure.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetoric runs to conventional partisan combativeness rather than a documented incitement or enemy-making
pattern. No Criterion 10 conduct on record. Middle: combative on policy, but not dehumanizing or
confrontation-directing.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?A pattern of late financial-disclosure filings under the STOCK Act: a spouse's MicroStrategy purchase
disclosed ~76 days late, a Capital One purchase 72 days late, and other tardy filings. These are
transparency/appearance concerns (no insider-trading finding, no sanction), and Dunn self-reported to the
Ethics Committee and corrected once flagged. Weighed as a real fiduciary-diligence drag, not a finding, held at 4 because the pattern is repeated rather than a single lapse.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's own side at cost. The record shows little documented instance
of Dunn breaking with his party leadership or president on a matter of principle at personal cost; the most
consequential conduct (the amicus, the certification objections) ran with the party current rather than
against it. Below middle on the absence of demonstrated independent accountability.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No clear documented discretion-test event, neither a notable refusal of preferential treatment nor a
documented abuse of discretionary position. Neutral middle in the absence of evidence either way.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and a public one, no recorded hot-mic contradiction or
reported two-faced conduct. Upper-middle on the absence of a documented integrity gap.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Represents a safe district largely in line with constituent preference; no documented donor-vs-constituent
betrayal, but also no standout record of constituent service overriding party or donor interest. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, foreign-government revenue. The household trading activity (a physician's pre-office wealth and ordinary
brokerage/spousal trades) shows no documented finding of trading on non-public official information or
office-driven enrichment; the disclosure-timeliness problems are scored at M06, not here. Raw wealth is not
penalized. Neutral middle absent a documented self-dealing finding.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Generally conventional institutional decorum on the floor; no documented spectacle-over-institution
pattern, but also no notable defense of institutional norms. The amicus is scored as Criterion-8 conduct at
M01/M04 rather than double-counted here. Middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?The Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus advanced election-fraud claims that courts uniformly rejected for lack of
evidence, a documented embrace of an unsupported factual premise. Offset by no broader documented pattern
of serial falsehood across his record. Middle, pulled down by the amicus premise.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?A practicing physician (urologic surgeon) who brings genuine subject-matter command to health-policy work
and committee service. Substantive competence in his domain is a real positive; held to upper-middle by a
legislative footprint that is solid rather than landmark.
[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 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020) seeking to invalidate four states' certified electors; later voted to sustain Jan 6 objections to AZ/PA ↳ Criterion 8, process subversion against a certified election | Confined to legal/legislative channel; separately condemned the Capitol violence, holds M01 at 3 not 2 |
| M04 | Same amicus, name lent to nullifying another state's certified electors ↳ use of legitimate process to subvert a constitutional outcome | No documented prosecutorial weaponization against named rivals beyond the amicus |
| M06 | Repeated late STOCK Act disclosures, spouse's MicroStrategy buy ~76 days late, Capital One 72 days late, among others ↳ Fiduciary diligence / disclosure-timeliness | No insider-trading finding or sanction; self-reported to Ethics Committee and corrected once flagged |
| M07 | Little documented instance of breaking with party/president on principle at personal cost ↳ active call-out duty unmet | - |
| M13 | Amicus advanced election-fraud claims uniformly rejected by courts for lack of evidence ↳ embrace of an unsupported factual premise | No broader serial-falsehood pattern documented |
| Pillar I | The amicus is a fidelity break toward the certified-election outcome ↳ Trust & Loyalty drag | Confined to legal channel; condemned the violence |
| Pillar IV | The amicus plus the STOCK Act pattern asterisk the legacy on Integrity ↳ Legacy/Virtue drag | Genuine professional competence and self-correction on disclosures temper but do not erase |
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
| 4 | why?Attributes: Courage, Selfless Service, Loyalty, Accountability. The defining drag is fidelity toward the certified-election outcome, the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus runs against the oath's transfer-of-power purpose. Held at 4: confined to a legal channel and paired with condemnation of the Capitol violence, but a real break. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. The self-report and correction of the late STOCK Act filing shows some Teachability; the conviction is genuine but conventionally party-aligned. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Stewardship, Accountability. No documented exploitation of office for gain, but the amicus is a misuse of legitimate influence toward an unconstitutional end, and the disclosure pattern is a Stewardship lapse. Below middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. Genuine professional competence as a physician-legislator is a positive, but the amicus and the election-fraud premise it carried are durable drags on Love of Truth and Integrity. Below middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 17/40 |
Total 17/40, Below middle. The Criterion-8 amicus conduct dominates the character pillars; competence and the corrected disclosure keep it off the floor.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Another political stunt by House Democrats... a never-ending witch-hunt.”
Statement opposing a House resolution expanding Judiciary Committee enforcement powers · Dunn House press releases · CONTESTED · cite
“I took all necessary action to ensure the situation was resolved.”
Response after a late STOCK Act disclosure was flagged; self-reported to the House Ethics Committee · OpenSecrets, March 2025 · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Neal Patrick Dunn (born 1953). U.S. Representative for Florida's 2nd congressional district since 2017 (originally elected for FL-2, redistricted). Republican. A urologic surgeon by profession and a former U.S. Army Medical Corps officer (Major, ~1980–1991). Announced on January 13, 2026 that he would not seek re-election; a terminal heart condition was publicly disclosed in March 2026. Still serving as of mid-2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index scores run below the House median across measured congresses (negative composite, ranking in the 140s–180s), indicating limited cross-aisle sponsorship. Committee work has centered on Energy & Commerce (health subcommittees, leveraging his medical background) and Veterans' Affairs. A reliable member of the Republican conference; voting record is solidly conservative on DW-NOMINATE. Policy positions are NOT scored here, only conduct against the oath.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional-conduct event is the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), which Dunn signed as one of 126 House Republicans, asking the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He then voted on Jan 6, 2021 to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors, while separately condemning the Capitol violence. The amicus is scored as Criterion-8 process subversion; the floor objection, as part of the constitutional certification process, is noted but not independently treated as capping conduct.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Conventional partisan combativeness, "political stunt," "witch-hunt," and similar policy/process heat, but no documented pattern of dehumanizing opponents or directing confrontation. No Criterion-10 conduct on record. The rhetoric drag is ordinary, not a character flag.
5. Fiduciary Profile
A repeated pattern of late STOCK Act disclosures: a spouse's MicroStrategy purchase reported roughly 76 days late, a Capital One purchase 72 days late, and other tardy filings, per OpenSecrets reporting. No insider-trading finding and no sanction; Dunn self-reported to the House Ethics Committee and corrected the filings once an attorney flagged them. Weighed as a genuine fiduciary-diligence and transparency drag (M06), not as office-driven enrichment (M11), since no self-dealing on official information is documented.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class event: Criterion 8 (process subversion), confirmed, Dunn signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking to nullify four states' certified electors. This is a capping flag: it floors M01, hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. Flag count: one (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Dunn's record carries genuine positives, a physician's substantive command of health policy, military service, and a self-corrected disclosure lapse handled with some accountability. But the standard cannot wave away the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus: lending a member's name to a filing meant to invalidate another state's certified electors is process subversion under Criterion 8, the gravest conduct the scorecard measures short of incitement. That single act caps the record and forecloses support, independent of the otherwise-adequate middle. The STOCK Act pattern and below-median bipartisan work are honest secondary drags. The competence is real; the constitutional break is disqualifying for support.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. Supreme Court docket 22O155 (Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus) · Congress.gov member profile · House financial disclosures (eFD)
Tier 2: OpenSecrets, STOCK Act reporting · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.