Composite 5.97 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 622, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service on record. Adriano Espaillat is the first formerly-undocumented immigrant and first Dominican-American to serve in Congress; his pre-congressional public service was in the New York State Assembly (1997-2010) and State Senate (2011-2016). Service context is not scored; conduct is.
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 | 7 | why?No documented process-subversion conduct. As a Democrat seated in 2017, he did not and could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Republican signatories only); not on the 126-signatory list. No fake-elector, appointment-blockade, or election-overturn conduct on record. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because the oath-defense record is ordinary institutional service, without a documented stand against his own side at personal cost. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index places him near the bottom decile, 377th in the 118th House (score -1.22), 355th in the 117th (-1.04). This is scored as conduct (low cross-aisle bridge-building behavior), NOT as policy or party alignment. A genuine drag on the put-country-over-win measure; middle, reflecting consistent low bipartisan output rather than any single act. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented anti-belonging pattern, no record of casting opponents or constituents as people who do not belong. First Dominican-American and first formerly-undocumented member; advocacy framed inclusively. Upper-middle: clean on this attribute, no high-mark cross-tribe defense anchor to lift it higher. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-class conduct. The Kingsbridge appearance-concern (M06/M11) involves alleged influence-peddling, not turning state power against an opponent. No drag here. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Conventional partisan floor rhetoric typical of a safe-seat member; no documented sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern, and no documented high-restraint anchor either. Middle: ordinary political heat, neither a flagged pattern nor a notable virtue. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?An April 2025 Office of Congressional Ethics complaint alleges he favored the Kingsbridge Armory bid of a firm (Maddd Equities) whose principal gave $23,800 across 2020/2022/2024, and whose lobbyist is his former chief of staff. Weighed as an APPEARANCE-concern, not a finding: a complaint does not equal an investigation or a sanction, and nothing is adjudicated. The revolving-door-plus-donor optics are a real fiduciary drag at the appearance level; scored as concern, not conviction. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?Active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Espaillat breaking from his caucus or leadership at personal risk; consistent party-line posture and bottom-decile bipartisan index indicate the affirmative call-out duty is not demonstrated. Middle-low: not a failure of conduct, but the higher bar is unmet. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented discretion-test event (no record of declining preferential treatment at cost, nor of seeking it). Neutral-to-positive: clean record without an affirmative high-mark anchor. The Kingsbridge optics are scored under M06/M11, not double-counted here. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap, no record of an off-camera persona contradicting the public one. Middle, reflecting absence of evidence either way rather than a demonstrated consistency anchor. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Long-tenured representation of a safe Harlem/Bronx district aligned with constituent preference; active constituent-service and appropriations work. Middle-upper held down slightly by the Kingsbridge donor-alignment question, weighed lightly here since it is unadjudicated. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, or foreign-government revenue resulting in personal enrichment. The Kingsbridge allegation concerns steering a public award to a donor, not personal financial gain to Espaillat; weighed as an unresolved appearance-concern. Middle: no proven enrichment, but the appearance question keeps it off a clean high. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?No documented decorum sanction, censure, or floor-conduct violation; not among the 2025 decorum-breakdown actors (e.g., the Al Green censure). Sustained ordinary institutional decorum over a multi-term tenure. Upper-middle: respects the institution without a standout decorum anchor. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern and no notable truth-telling-at-cost anchor. Middle: clean on documented fabrication, without affirmative evidence to lift it. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Appropriations Committee service (Legislative Branch ranking-member work) reflects functional substantive engagement over talking points. Middle-upper: competent committee substance without a signature command-of-policy anchor. [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 |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index bottom-decile: 377th in the 118th House (-1.22), 355th in the 117th (-1.04) ↳ low cross-aisle bridge-building (conduct, not policy/party) | Scored as behavioral output only; safe-seat members face weaker structural incentive to co-sponsor across the aisle |
| M06 | April 2025 OCE complaint alleging he favored a Kingsbridge Armory bidder (Maddd Equities) that gave $23,800 and whose lobbyist is his former chief of staff ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety (revolving-door + donor optics) | Unadjudicated complaint, not an OCE investigation, not a finding, not a sanction; weighed as appearance-concern, not conviction |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking from his own caucus/leadership at personal cost ↳ active call-out duty unmet | Absence of evidence, not a documented failure of conduct |
| M11 | Kingsbridge allegation of steering a public award to a donor remains unresolved ↳ office-conduct appearance-concern | No proven personal enrichment; raw wealth NOT penalized; appearance-only |
| Pillar II | The Kingsbridge optics sit against Authenticity/Integrity at the appearance level ↳ Integrity drag | Unadjudicated; no finding |
| Pillar III | Donor-alignment question on a public-award process (Stewardship) plus bottom-decile bipartisan output (Reliability across the aisle) ↳ Stewardship/Reliability drag | No proven abuse of power; constituent representation is otherwise consistent |
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
| 6 | why?Attributes: Loyalty, Steadiness, Selfless Service, a long, stable record of representing a consistent constituency without documented breaches of trust. Held at middle by the absence of any demonstrated courage-at-cost anchor (no documented break from his own side) rather than by any drag toward the opposites. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, clear convictions and consistent advocacy. The Kingsbridge appearance-concern is an unadjudicated drag toward Integrity's opposite; it tempers but, being unresolved, does not sink the pillar. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, active constituent and appropriations work. The donor/revolving-door optics around a public-award process are a Stewardship drag at the appearance level; no documented exploitation. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth, a barrier-breaking representational legacy. No documented falsehood or enemy-making pattern; no standout virtue anchor either. The pending appearance-concern is the only asterisk. Middle. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 24/40 |
Total 24/40, Adequate. An honest middle: a stable, clean-on-the-record representational career with no severity-class conduct, held off a higher mark by the unadjudicated Kingsbridge appearance-concern, a bottom-decile bipartisan index, and the absence of any documented stand against his own side at cost.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“As the first formerly undocumented immigrant to serve in Congress, I will never stop fighting for the dignity of working families.”
Recurring framing of his representational mission · Espaillat House office public statements · CIVIC · cite
“I take seriously my responsibility to be a faithful steward of taxpayer dollars on the Appropriations Committee.”
Statement to the House Rules Committee on FY2024 Legislative Branch appropriations · Espaillat House office · PRINCIPLED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Adriano de Jesús Espaillat Cabral. U.S. Representative for New York's 13th Congressional District since January 3, 2017 (Harlem, East/West Harlem, Hamilton Heights, Washington Heights, Inwood, Marble Hill, and the northwest Bronx). Born in the Dominican Republic; the first Dominican-American and first formerly- undocumented immigrant to serve in Congress. Prior service: New York State Assembly (1997-2010) and New York State Senate (2011-2016). Member, House Appropriations Committee. Running for a sixth term in 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index bottom-decile across measured Congresses, 377th of the House in the 118th (score -1.22), 355th in the 117th (-1.04), scored here strictly as cross-aisle behavioral output, not policy or party. Safe-seat Democrat representing a heavily Democratic Harlem/Bronx district. Appropriations Committee work, including Legislative Branch subcommittee ranking-member activity. The measure deliberately does not grade his policy positions in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
No documented process-subversion conduct. As a Democrat seated in 2017, Espaillat is not on the 126-member December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Republican signatories only) and could not have signed it. No fake-elector, appointment-blockade, or election-overturning conduct on record. No censure or decorum sanction; not among the documented 2025 House decorum-breakdown actors.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Conventional partisan floor and public rhetoric for a safe-seat member; advocacy framed around immigrant dignity and his district. No documented sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern (no Criterion-10 conduct), and no standout high-restraint anchor. An honest middle on rhetoric.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The principal fiduciary item is an April 2025 Office of Congressional Ethics complaint by a losing Kingsbridge Armory bidder, alleging Espaillat favored the winning bid of Maddd Equities, a firm whose principal contributed $23,800 across 2020/2022/2024 and whose registered lobbyist is his former chief of staff (departed February 2025). This is weighed as an APPEARANCE-concern only: a complaint is not an OCE investigation, a finding, or a sanction, and the matter is unadjudicated. The revolving-door-plus-donor optics are a real drag at the appearance level; no proven personal enrichment, and raw wealth is not penalized.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No Criterion-8 process subversion (not a Texas v. PA signatory; Democrat seated 2017). No Criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern. The Kingsbridge OCE complaint is an unadjudicated appearance-concern, not a finding, and does not rise to a severity flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle. Espaillat's record is clean of severity-class conduct: no process subversion, no enemy-making pattern, no decorum sanction, no proven enrichment. What holds him off a higher mark is real but bounded, an unadjudicated 2025 ethics complaint with genuine revolving-door-and-donor optics around a public-award process, a bottom-decile bipartisan index scored as behavioral output, and the absence of any documented stand against his own side at cost. Adequate: a stable representational career weighed without partisan thumb on the scale, with the appearance-concern counted honestly rather than as a conviction.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Clerk member page / financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Bronx Times, Kingsbridge OCE complaint reporting · OpenSecrets contribution data
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures (Clerk) · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · OpenSecrets summary · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.