Composite 4.52 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 502, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
- Commissioned officer, U.S. Air Force, stationed at Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls, TX
- Awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal
Service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. No conduct from the service period is independently scored; the badge contextualizes the record but does not move 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 | 6 | why?Fallon voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors on Jan 6, 2021. Per the
contamination rule, a bare floor objection vote (the constitutional process working, even when one
disagrees with it) is NOT scored as process subversion and is NOT criterion-8. Critically, Fallon was
not sworn in until Jan 3, 2021, he was a Texas state senator in December 2020 and therefore could NOT
and did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (a 116th-Congress House document). No fake-elector
role, no documented effort to defeat the certified result by extra-procedural means. No criterion-class
conduct. Held at a solid middle: the objection is weighed as a posture concern, not a finding.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Bottom-tier bipartisan output in the 117th (ranked 413th of the House, score -1.595), improving to a
below-median 254th in the 118th. The Index measures cross-aisle bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship, an institutional-cooperation behavior, not policy or ideology. The record shows little reaching across
to build durable cross-party work; scored as conduct, the cooperation muscle is weak though trending up.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of casting whole classes of citizens as enemies who do not belong, so no
criterion-10 flag. The drags are real but bounded: a 2023 smear of the Southern Poverty Law Center
sourced to a satire site (a diligence/fairness lapse aimed at an organization), and a hostile December
2024 hearing exchange directed at a Secret Service official. Conduct toward specific individuals/groups,
heated and careless rather than a sustained anti-belonging campaign. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals, no abuse of subpoena or investigative power
for personal/partisan retaliation attributable to him, and (per M01) no signing of the Texas v. PA
amicus or fake-elector conduct. No criterion-8. Aggressive committee questioning is posture, not abuse.
Clean middle on the no-weaponization standard.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?A pattern of crude and escalatory rhetoric: the December 2024 shouting match in which he invoked 9/11
against a Secret Service official ('Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes,' the official replied),
and graphic public remarks after an assassination attempt ('put 16 rounds into this son of a [expletive]',
'Evil Batman'). Not a sustained enemy-making campaign against citizens (no criterion-10), but a real,
repeated failure of rhetorical restraint and decorum. Below middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?The Office of Congressional Ethics found 'substantial reason to believe' Fallon violated the STOCK Act,
failing to timely disclose roughly 90+ transactions worth between ~$9M and ~$21M across 2021. He had
completed mandatory ethics training before the trades, continued filing late even after public reporting,
and the OCE report states he refused to fully cooperate, prompting a subpoena recommendation. This is a
documented fiduciary appearance-concern (not a court conviction), aggravated by repetition and
non-cooperation rather than mitigated by prompt ownership. Low.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Fallon
publicly breaking with his own party leadership or co-partisans on a matter of principle at personal
cost. His most visible confrontations were with administration/agency officials of the opposing posture, which does not meet the higher bar. Low, absence of the costly self-correction conduct, not a finding
of affirmative wrongdoing.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?The discretion test asks whether private advantage is declined when no one is watching. The countervailing
data point is the STOCK Act matter (handled under M06/M11). Beyond that, no documented instance either of
conspicuous self-restraint or of additional self-dealing. Neutral middle on the discretion test for lack
of further documented conduct in either direction.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and a public one, his combativeness is on-camera and
consistent, not a hidden contempt revealed off-stage. Scored neutral middle: the behavior is congruent
across settings, with the rhetorical-restraint concerns already counted under M05.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?No documented constituent-versus-donor betrayal specific to Fallon and no evidence of selling out the
district's interests for outside money. Routine constituent service and town-hall engagement are on
record. Neutral middle for lack of documented conduct cutting either way on the alignment standard.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 3 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable concern, not raw wealth. The documented concern is real and
office-specific: Fallon traded a defense contractor (Boeing) while serving on the House Armed Services
Committee, which oversees the government's relationship with defense contractors, an office-information
conflict, and failed to disclose those and ~90 other trades on time in violation of the STOCK Act. The
conflict-of-interest appearance plus the disclosure failures, not the size of his portfolio, drive the
low score. Weighed as an appearance-concern (OCE finding, not a conviction).
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional decorum is a documented weak spot: the December 2024 task-force hearing 'devolved into a
shouting match' with the acting Secret Service director, a breakdown of the committee's regular order and
dignity in a setting investigating assassination attempts. Combined with the assassination-attempt
remarks, the record shows recurring spectacle over decorum. Below middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Two documented truthfulness/transparency drags: he publicly accused the SPLC of designating veterans'
organizations as hate groups based on a fabricated story from a satire website (a failure of diligence
before asserting a damaging falsehood), and per the OCE he did not fully cooperate with the disclosure
investigation. Not a sustained habitual-falsehood pattern across the whole record, but enough documented
breaches to sit below middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantively engaged: seats on Armed Services (Cyber/IT/Innovation), Oversight & Government Reform, and
Select Intelligence, active bill sponsorship (e.g., H.R.8610, 2026), and a 2026 bid for the top Oversight
Republican slot, which signals command of the committee's substantive remit. Substance is present though
not exceptional; held at a solid middle.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M06 | OCE found 'substantial reason to believe' Fallon violated the STOCK Act, failed to timely disclose ~90+ trades ($9M-$21M) across 2021 despite prior ethics training; continued late filings and did not fully cooperate ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety, aggravated by repetition and non-cooperation | OCE finding, not a conviction; counsel characterized it as inadvertent; $600 in late fees paid |
| M11 | Traded defense contractor Boeing while seated on the House Armed Services Committee, and failed to disclose those trades on time ↳ Office-information conflict of interest (office-attributable) | Weighed as an appearance-concern; no finding of unlawful insider trading |
| M02 | Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index ranked 413th of the House in the 117th Congress (-1.595), improving to 254th (-0.650) in the 118th ↳ Weak cross-aisle institutional cooperation | Improving trend across terms |
| M05 | Crude/escalatory public rhetoric: invoked 9/11 in a hearing shouting match; said an assassination suspect should have had '16 rounds' put into him ↳ Rhetorical restraint / decorum lapse | Directed at officials/a suspect, not a sustained anti-belonging campaign against citizens |
| M13 | Accused the SPLC of labeling veterans' groups as hate groups based on a satire-site fabrication; OCE non-cooperation finding ↳ Diligence/truthfulness drag | Isolated documented falsehood, not a habitual pattern across the full record |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own side at personal cost ↳ Absence of costly self-correction conduct | Absence of evidence, not an affirmative finding of wrongdoing |
| M12 | December 2024 task-force hearing devolved into a shouting match with the acting Secret Service director ↳ Institutional decorum breakdown | Heat in an adversarial oversight setting; no procedural abuse |
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
| 5 | why?Attributes: Courage, Selfless Service, Steadiness, Loyalty. Career partisan loyalty and visible combativeness are present, but the discretion-test data point (STOCK Act non-disclosure) drags toward Self-Interest, and there is no documented costly stand for principle against his own side. Neutral-low middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Conviction and authenticity are evident, but the satire-sourced smear and the non-cooperation with the ethics inquiry show drags toward the opposites of Self-Reflection and Teachability, he characterized the disclosure failures as inadvertent rather than fully owning them. Below middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Stewardship, Accountability. No documented weaponization of state power (no criterion-8), which holds this off the floor, but the office-information conflict (Boeing trades while on Armed Services) is a Stewardship/Accountability drag. Neutral middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The STOCK Act appearance-concern, the falsehood about the SPLC, and the crude rhetoric are genuine drags toward Favoritism/Ego and away from Love of Truth. Active substantive committee work tempers but does not lift it above below-middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 18/40 |
Total 18/40, Below middle. The pillars track the conduct composite: no criterion-class flag keeps the record off the floor, but the documented fiduciary, truthfulness, and decorum drags keep it under the line.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“When you sprint through an outer perimeter with the president in attendance, and you have a rifle and other firearms, I'm shocked they didn't just put 16 rounds into this son of a [expletive].”
Public remarks after an assassination attempt on Donald Trump · CBS Texas · CONTESTED · cite
“You wanted to be visible because you are auditioning for this job that you're not going to get come Jan. 20.”
Hearing exchange accusing the acting Secret Service director of attending a 9/11 memorial for political reasons; the director replied 'Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes.' · Roll Call · CONTESTED · cite
“In sum, this was an entirely inadvertent oversight by a brand-new Member of Congress.”
Statement from Fallon's legal representative responding to the OCE STOCK Act findings · Roll Call · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Patrick Edward "Pat" Fallon (born December 19, 1967, Pittsfield, Massachusetts). U.S. Representative for Texas's 4th Congressional District since January 3, 2021. Previously Texas House of Representatives (district 106) 2013-2019 and Texas Senate (district 30) 2019-2021. U.S. Air Force commissioned officer 1990-1994 (Second Lieutenant). B.A., University of Notre Dame. As of 2026, running for the top Republican seat on the House Oversight Committee; on the ballot for re-election Nov 3, 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Committee service: House Armed Services (Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technology, and Innovation), Oversight & Government Reform, and Select Intelligence. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index: 413th of the House in the 117th Congress (-1.595), improving to 254th (-0.650) in the 118th, bottom-tier to below-median cross-aisle output. Active sponsor (e.g., H.R.8610, the Sudan Waiver Report Reduction Act, 2026). Policy positions are NOT scored here in either direction, per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy.
3. Constitutional Moments
Jan 6, 2021: voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors. Per the framework this bare floor objection is the constitutional process functioning and is NOT scored as a vote, NOT as process subversion, and NOT as criterion-8. Amicus cross-check: Fallon was sworn into the U.S. House on Jan 3, 2021 and was a Texas state senator in December 2020, he was therefore NOT eligible to sign and did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (a document of 116th-Congress House members). No fake-elector role and no documented extra-procedural effort to defeat the certified result.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
The rhetorical record shows recurring crudeness and escalation rather than a sustained campaign to cast citizens as enemies (no criterion-10). The documented instances, the graphic '16 rounds' remark after an assassination attempt, the 'Evil Batman' framing, and the December 2024 hearing shouting match invoking 9/11 against a Secret Service official, are weighed as decorum and restraint failures. Confrontational toward officials and a suspect; not a documented anti-belonging pattern aimed at a class of citizens.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The central fiduciary concern is office-attributable. The Office of Congressional Ethics found 'substantial reason to believe' Fallon violated the STOCK Act, failing to timely disclose roughly 90+ transactions valued between ~$9M and ~$21M across 2021, including Boeing, a defense contractor, while he sat on the House Armed Services Committee that oversees the government's relationship with defense contractors. He had completed mandatory ethics training before the trades, kept filing late after public reporting, and per the OCE did not fully cooperate (prompting a subpoena recommendation and referral to the House Ethics Committee). His counsel called it 'entirely inadvertent'; he paid $600 in late fees. Weighed as an appearance-concern (OCE finding), not a conviction.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. On criterion 8 (process subversion): the Jan 6 objection was a bare floor vote, not extra-procedural subversion, and Fallon could not and did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (sworn in Jan 3, 2021; a state senator in Dec 2020). On criterion 10 (sustained enemy-making/incitement): the rhetoric is crude and escalatory but does not rise to a documented pattern of casting citizens as enemies or directing confrontation. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Fallon's record carries no criterion-class flag, the Jan 6 objection was a floor vote, not subversion, and he never signed the Texas v. PA amicus, which keeps him off the floor of the scale. But the documented drags are substantial and office-specific: the STOCK Act appearance-concern aggravated by non-cooperation, the Boeing-while-on-Armed-Services conflict of interest, weak cross-aisle cooperation, a satire-sourced public falsehood, and recurring decorum and rhetorical-restraint failures. Active substantive committee work is real and counted. The honest reading is a below-middle conduct record: no disqualifying flag, but a cluster of fiduciary, truthfulness, and decorum concerns that sit under the line.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Office of Congressional Ethics, Report & Findings (STOCK Act)
Tier 2: Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · Roll Call / CBS News coverage
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · OCE Report & Findings (House Ethics) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.