Composite 5.96 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 621, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
- Intelligence officer, U.S. Navy Reserve, approximately 11 years of service
Service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. No conduct from her reserve service is scored as character on its own; it 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 | 6 | why?Freshman seated January 2025, too short a tenure for a defining oath-over-self stand at personal cost, so this sits at an honest middle rather than high or low. The affirmative signal is real but modest: as
House Judiciary counsel (2019) she co-authored the constitutional-grounds report in the first Trump
impeachment, and as a member she has pressed an executive-branch official (Hegseth) directly on whether
he would follow Supreme Court rulings, defending the rule-of-law / separation-of-powers premise. No
process-subversion conduct of any kind: seated in 2025, she could not have signed the December 2020 Texas
v. Pennsylvania amicus and is not on its signatory list. No floor objection to a certified election. No
criterion-8 conduct.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Short record, but the early pattern shows willingness to legislate across the aisle: the No Coffee Tax
Act introduced with Don Bacon (R-NE) and others, and a bipartisan war-powers resolution. No Lugar/McCourt
Bipartisan Index score exists yet (one-term member). Scored at an honest middle on demonstrated
cross-aisle conduct, neither inflated nor penalized for thin tenure. NOTE: caucus/party alignment is NOT
scored here, only documented bridge-building behavior.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented anti-belonging conduct, no slurs, no casting of constituents or opponents as people who
do not belong. Pointed adversarial questioning of administration witnesses is policy/oversight heat, not
anti-belonging conduct, and is not penalized. Held at middle rather than higher only because the record
is short and contains no affirmative high-mark moment (a Lakeville-style defense of an opponent's
personhood) to lift it.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-class conduct. As a DOJ official she was the
subject of recusal calls (Durham probe) rather than an instigator of state power against opponents, and
DOJ stated she had no role in that investigation. The 2024 financial-disclosure appearance-concern is
weighed at M06/M11, not here. No abuse-of-power finding.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetoric is sharp-edged in oversight settings but stays factual and sourced, "I'm actually quoting you
directly, Mr. Hegseth" is confrontation grounded in the record, not invective or dehumanization. No
documented pattern of slurs, conspiracy rhetoric, or enemy-making. Middle: disciplined adversarial tone, no affirmative de-escalation high mark on record yet.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?Genuine fiduciary appearance-concern. Her original 2024 candidate financial disclosure listed 101 of 126
assets as "undetermined" in value, described by an outside ethics attorney as "bizarre", and a state
legislator filed a DOJ ethics complaint alleging an attempt to obscure her finances. She amended the
filing the next day, naming trusts and affiliates and revealing assets of at least $8.9M (potentially
$30M+). EVIDENTIARY RULE: the complaint produced no charge or finding, so this is weighed as an
appearance-concern, not a violation. Separately, the 2021 Durham-probe recusal calls (conflict via her
husband) are a weighed appearance-concern that DOJ said involved no role for her. The prompt correction
mitigates; the initial incompleteness is the drag. Below middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?The active-duty standard here is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Her documented hard-questioning is
directed at the opposing administration (Hegseth), legitimate oversight, but not the higher bar of
same-side accountability. As impeachment counsel she did contribute to a constitutional-process check, and no record shows her excusing misconduct on her own side. No own-side call-out at personal cost is yet
documented, so this holds at an honest middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?The discretion test, using or declining preferential access for the public good. Eleven years as a Navy
Reserve intelligence officer (Lt.) and clerkships for Chief Judge Garland and Justice Breyer reflect
service and merit, but no documented purest-form discretion event (a refusal of preferential treatment at
cost) exists. The residency optics, renting a Nashua home only upon becoming a candidate while owning a
higher-value home nearby, is a transparency/optics note, weighed lightly. Middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap, no leaked off-camera conduct contradicting her public
posture. Record is short; absence of a documented gap supports a middle-to-upper hold, kept at middle for
thin tenure rather than positive proof of consistency over time.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Constituent-service conduct. Missed 0 of 517 roll-call votes through April 2026 (0.0%, better than the
median), a concrete diligence signal. Offsetting drag: the carpetbagger/residency question (had not
lived in NH-2 since the Bush administration; rented in-district only as a candidate) is a real
represented-community-connection concern, though she was born in Nashua. Net middle: strong presence, genuine rootedness question.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?CONTAMINATION GUARD APPLIED: M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, never raw wealth. Her
~$8.9M-$30M+ holdings derive from inheritance (granddaughter of NH developer Sam Tamposi) and
family trusts, pre-office and non-office wealth, NOT penalized as a breach. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue attributable to her office. The
only office-relevant drag is the disclosure-transparency lapse (scored primarily at M06). Held at middle:
no enrichment finding, with a minor transparency shadow.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Institutional-decorum conduct. Committee questioning has been heated but stayed within hearing order, sourced, on-topic, no documented breach of decorum, no stunts. No record of degrading the institution for
spectacle. Middle: orderly conduct, short record, no standout institution-honoring moment yet.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. The closest factual-honesty concern is the incomplete 2024
financial disclosure (weighed at M06 as an appearance/transparency matter, promptly amended), not a
pattern of public deception. Her hearing posture leans on direct quotation of the record. Middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Substantive command over talking points is the relative strength. Yale Law; clerk to Chief Judge Garland
and Justice Breyer; senior foreign-policy advisor to Senators Lieberman and McCain; Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Her oversight questioning is detailed and record-grounded
(budget, AI competition, rule-of-law commitments). Genuine policy depth lifts this above 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 | Original 2024 candidate financial disclosure listed 101 of 126 assets as 'undetermined'; DOJ ethics complaint filed alleging concealment ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety / transparency lapse | Amended the filing the next day naming trusts and affiliates; complaint produced no charge or finding |
| M06 | 2021 Durham-probe recusal calls via conflict with husband Jake Sullivan ↳ appearance-of-conflict | DOJ stated she had no role in the investigation; appearance-concern only, no finding, folded into the M06 narrative |
| M10 | Had not lived in NH-2 since the Bush administration; rented in-district only upon becoming a candidate while owning a higher-value home nearby ↳ represented-community-connection / rootedness | Born in Nashua; perfect 0.0% roll-call attendance shows diligence |
| M11 | ~$8.9M-$30M+ holdings from Tamposi-family inheritance and trusts ↳ wealth-disconnect from median constituents | Pre/non-office inherited wealth, NOT office-driven enrichment, not penalized as a breach; transparency shadow only |
| Pillar III | Disclosure-transparency lapse + residency-rootedness question ↳ Stewardship/Reliability drag | Prompt amendment; zero documented exploitation of office |
| Pillar IV | Initial disclosure incompleteness leaves an integrity asterisk on the early record ↳ Integrity drag | Corrected quickly; no pattern of deception |
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: Selfless Service, Steadiness, Navy Reserve service and a perfect voting-attendance record show diligence and presence. Held at middle by thin tenure; no apex sacrifice-for-oath event yet, and no drag toward Cowardice or Collapse. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Self-Reflection, Teachability, promptly corrected the flawed financial disclosure rather than fight it, which counts. The initial incompleteness is a real Consistency/Integrity drag that keeps this at middle rather than higher. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, record-grounded oversight of executive officials and no documented exploitation of office. The residency-rootedness and disclosure-transparency notes are minor Reliability/Stewardship drags, not abuses. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Love of Truth, substantive command of law and policy with a clean early legacy apart from the disclosure asterisk. Short tenure caps the upside; no enemy-making or process-subversion drag toward Favoritism/Ego. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 24/40 |
Total 24/40, Adequate. The pillars hold at an honest middle: real diligence and substantive depth, a genuine but promptly-corrected transparency lapse, and too short a record for the extraordinary marks that lift a score higher.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I am a renter, and there should be more renters in Congress.”
Responding to residency/carpetbagger questions during the 2024 NH-2 primary campaign · Valley News · CONTESTED · cite
“I'm not, I'm actually quoting you directly, Mr. Hegseth.”
House Armed Services Committee hearing, correcting the witness that her question came from his own prior words · House Armed Services Committee hearing record · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Margaret Bjorkman "Maggie" Goodlander (born November 4, 1986, Nashua, NH). U.S. Representative for New Hampshire's 2nd congressional district since January 3, 2025. Yale College 2009; Yale Law School 2016. Senior foreign-policy advisor to U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain; law clerk to Chief Judge Merrick Garland (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Stephen Breyer (Supreme Court); counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment; counselor to the Attorney General and Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Antitrust Division (2022-2024); briefly a White House senior advisor. U.S. Navy Reserve intelligence officer (Lieutenant), approximately 2009-2020. Married to former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Freshman member (119th Congress), seated January 2025. Early bipartisan work includes the No Coffee Tax Act (with Don Bacon, R-NE, and others) and a bipartisan Iran war-powers resolution. Perfect roll-call attendance, 0 of 517 votes missed through April 2026. No Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index score exists yet given single-term tenure. Background concentration in national security, foreign policy, and antitrust law. Policy positions are not graded here in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
As House Judiciary counsel (2019) she co-authored the report on constitutional grounds in the first Trump impeachment, process-side participation in a constitutional check. As a member she has pressed an executive-branch official on commitment to follow Supreme Court rulings, defending judicial supremacy and separation of powers. Seated in 2025, she had no opportunity to sign the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is not on its signatory list; no election-certification objection on record.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Adversarial but record-grounded in oversight settings. Her signature exchange, "I'm actually quoting you directly, Mr. Hegseth", is confrontation anchored in the witness's own prior words rather than invective. No documented pattern of slurs, conspiracy rhetoric, or enemy-making. The contested rhetorical note is the "renter" framing of her residency, an optics matter, not a belonging breach.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Inherited wealth (~$8.9M to potentially $30M+) via the Tamposi family, pre/non-office, not office-driven enrichment, and not penalized as a breach. The genuine fiduciary concern is conduct, not wealth: her original 2024 candidate financial disclosure left 101 of 126 assets "undetermined," drawing an outside "bizarre" assessment and a DOJ ethics complaint; she amended it the next day, and the complaint produced no charge or finding. The 2021 Durham-probe recusal calls (conflict via her husband) are an appearance-concern DOJ said involved no role for her. Weighed honestly as appearance-concerns, not violations.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion: seated in 2025, she could not and did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and lodged no certification objection. No sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern, heated oversight questioning is policy heat, expressly not scored as criterion-10 conduct. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Goodlander's record is short and honestly middling. The affirmative signals are real: substantive legal and national-security command, perfect voting attendance, early bipartisan legislation, and record-grounded oversight. The drags are also real and counted: a "bizarre" initial financial disclosure that drew an ethics complaint before she corrected it, a residency-rootedness question, and recusal-appearance concerns from her DOJ tenure, all weighed as appearance-concerns rather than findings, none rising to a severity flag. Her inherited wealth is explicitly not scored as enrichment. Adequate, with the upside capped by a one-term record rather than by any disqualifying conduct.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · U.S. House financial disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: Ballotpedia · Boston Globe, amended disclosure coverage · GovTrack attendance record
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures (Clerk) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.