Composite 4.06 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Does not clear the bar, and carries a confirmed capping flag for sustained enemy-making. The disqualifier is documented conduct, not policy or party, and it rests on conduct WHILE IN OFFICE, not on the pre-office social media that drove her 2021 committee removal: a multi-year in-office pattern of dehumanizing rhetoric toward whole groups and of casting opponents and fellow citizens as enemies who do not belong, from the 2021 Holocaust comparisons to the "party of pedophiles" framing to the recurring "national divorce" call, paired with an on-record refusal to call January 6 what the convictions show it was and a thin honesty record. Her contested policy positions and impeachment filings are NOT scored in either direction. The pre-office violence-adjacent posts are documented as context but are excluded from the capping flag, because flags rest on conduct connected to the oath. What sinks the record is in-office conduct the Doctrine grades regardless of which party holds the seat.
Sustained enemy-making / incitement, grounded on IN-OFFICE conduct (sworn 2021-01-03 to her resignation 2026-01-05), not on the pre-office social media that drove her 2021 committee removal. While holding the seat she built a documented, multi-year pattern of casting opponents and fellow citizens as enemies who do not belong: (1) May 2021, twice, comparing House mask and vaccination policy to the Holocaust ("just like the Nazi's forced Jewish people to wear a gold star," a gas-chamber comparison) and, weeks after a Holocaust-museum visit and apology, calling federal vaccine-outreach workers "medical brown shirts"; (2) 2022-2023, repeatedly branding Democrats "the party of pedophiles" and political opponents "groomers," reaffirmed on the record in 2023; (3) 2021-2023, framing colleagues and the opposing party as "traitorous" and a "communist takeover"; (4) the recurring "national divorce" call (February 2023, repeated 2024 and 2025) to separate citizens by red and blue states, the clearest statement that opposing citizens have no rightful shared place. This is a sustained, multi-instance in-office pattern on the same evidentiary bar applied to Waters, Higgins, and Pocan. The flag captures what the discourse measures (M03/M05) cannot carry at their weight. The pre-office "execute"/violence-endorsing material is documented as context only and is deliberately excluded from this flag's basis, because severity flags rest on conduct connected to the office.
Evidence: WaPo, Holocaust-comparison condemnation (May 2021) · NBC News, national-divorce call (Feb 20 2023) · The Hill, national-divorce call repeated (2024-2025)
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 record of U.S. military service. Pre-political career was in the family construction business (Taylor Commercial) and fitness. No service badge applies; this field is present for schema completeness only and is never a score input.
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?Re-grounded on CONDUCT after removing old-build policy contamination: the original low framing rested on her impeachment filings and her party-line votes, neither of which the Doctrine scores in either direction. On documented oath conduct she presents a mixed but not floored record, she takes and holds the office through ordinary constitutional means and her committee work proceeds within the rules. The genuine drag is her public posture toward the 2020 election certification, scored as conduct (statements, not the vote itself). Held at upper-middle because no adjudicated finding of an office-power abuse against the constitutional order attaches to her personally. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?A bottom-quartile bipartisan record with little cross-aisle authorship is a policy-and-coalition fact the Doctrine does not penalize as character. Scored at the passive-clean midpoint: no documented conduct of sabotaging the institution's ability to function beyond ordinary partisan posture, and no affirmative cross-aisle stewardship to credit either. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 3 | why?Persons of Equal Worth. A documented, repeated pattern of dehumanizing rhetoric toward whole groups, 'Islamic invasion' framing, anti-Muslim characterizations of colleagues, and amplification of conspiracy material that casts named groups as enemies. This is conduct that denies equal personhood, scored low; it is distinct from any policy position on immigration or religion, which is not graded. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 5 | why?No documented, adjudicated weaponization of state power against rivals attributable to her personally. Her impeachment filings against executive officials are policy/oversight acts the Doctrine refuses to score in either direction. Passive-clean middle: no criterion-class abuse on the record, no affirmative restraint anchor to credit upward. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 2 | why?Incite-or-threaten. The low score rests on documented conduct, not opinion: pre-office social-media activity endorsing or reacting approvingly to suggestions of violence against sitting members of Congress, later disavowed only after public exposure. Reckless incitement-adjacent conduct toward named persons is graded harshly under the active-duty standard; the after-the-fact disavowal is mitigation, not erasure. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?Fiduciary care. No adjudicated rule violation or sanction on the disclosure record, which keeps this off the floor. The drag is conduct-grounded: a pattern of reactive rather than proactive disclosure posture and disputes over fundraising-adjacent conduct that fall short of a sanction. Below midpoint because the affirmative-disclosure duty (disclose before asked, self-correct over self-protect) is not demonstrated. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?Re-grounded after removing policy contamination (the old framing folded in her impeachment filings, which are not scored). The conduct that grades low is real: a documented record of rhetoric and amplified conspiracy content that the House cited in a bipartisan committee-removal action, the removal is context for the underlying CONDUCT, not the score itself. Active-duty standard: no record of calling out wrongdoing on her own side, and an affirmative pattern of the dehumanizing rhetoric the measure exists to catch. The pre-office violence-adjacent posts toward colleagues anchor the severity concern. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 2 | why?Discretion to harm. Where discretion existed, what to post, whom to target, whether to amplify conspiracy material naming real people, the documented choices repeatedly ran toward harm of identifiable persons (school-shooting-survivor confrontations, harassment of colleagues). The discretion test, in its inverse: power and platform used to wound rather than spare. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 3 | why?Public/private contempt gap and candor. The drag is a documented gap between sweeping public claims and the verifiable record, and persistence in claims after correction. Held just above the floor because the gap is one of overstatement and conspiracy-amplification rather than a documented two-faced private/public reputational split with corroboration. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 4 | why?Constituent fidelity. She is repeatedly returned by her district, which weighs against a fidelity failure; but national-profile media activity that diverges from concrete district service is a conduct note. Below-middle, scored on the service-vs-spectacle balance rather than on her policy positions, which are not graded. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Re-scored 5->6 after removing policy/wealth-status contamination. The old build penalized raw pre-office wealth as a 'constituent-disconnect,' which the Doctrine forbids: M11 grades office-ATTRIBUTABLE enrichment, never wealth status. Her ~$10-30M net worth is pre-office (Taylor Commercial construction business), not office-driven. No adjudicated finding of office-attributable enrichment breach on the disclosure record. Scored at passive-clean middle accordingly; raw wealth is not a deduction. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Respect for the institution. Conduct-grounded drag: heckling during a State of the Union address, floor and hearing conduct repeatedly cited for disorder, and rhetoric treating institutional norms as obstacles. Below midpoint on documented decorum conduct, independent of any policy position taken. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 2 | why?Honesty / love of truth. A documented, sustained pattern of amplifying false or conspiratorial claims (QAnon-associated material, election-fraud assertions contradicted by the record, baseless attributions to named persons) and persistence after correction. The pattern is corroborated across independent fact-checkers; scored near the floor on the documented falsehood record, not on any contested-policy claim. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 3 | why?Substantive command and output. A thin record of enacted, substantive legislative work relative to public profile; committee chairmanship (DOGE Subcommittee) is recent and its substantive output not yet established. Below midpoint on demonstrated substance-over-spectacle, scored on output not ideology. [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 |
|---|---|---|
| M13 | Sustained, independently fact-checked pattern of amplifying false and conspiratorial claims (QAnon-associated material, election-fraud assertions, baseless claims about named persons), with persistence after correction ↳ Love of Truth / Honesty, documented-falsehood pattern | - |
| M08 | Discretionary choices to target and harm identifiable persons, confrontation of a school-shooting survivor, harassment of colleagues, amplification of conspiracy material naming real people ↳ Discretion-to-harm USED rather than withheld | - |
| M05 | Pre-office social-media activity endorsing or reacting approvingly to suggestions of violence against sitting members of Congress ↳ Incite-or-threaten, reckless incitement-adjacent conduct toward named persons | Disavowed after public exposure; disavowal is mitigation, not erasure |
| M03 | Repeated dehumanizing rhetoric toward whole religious and ethnic groups ('Islamic invasion' framing, anti-Muslim characterizations) ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, denial of equal personhood | - |
| M07 | Rhetoric and amplified conspiracy content the House cited in a bipartisan committee-removal action; no record of calling out wrongdoing on her own side ↳ Active-duty failure, affirmative dehumanizing pattern, no own-side accountability | Committee removal is context for the underlying conduct, not itself the score; impeachment filings excluded as policy |
| M12 | Heckling during a State of the Union address; floor and hearing conduct repeatedly cited for disorder ↳ Respect for the institution, decorum conduct | - |
| M01 | Public posture casting doubt on the 2020 election certification (statements scored as conduct, not the certification vote) ↳ Oath fidelity, conduct, not policy | Re-grounded off the old build's impeachment-filing contamination; takes/holds office through ordinary constitutional means |
Partisan gamesmanship, identified & set aside
A fixed standard has to refuse the partisan narrative as much as it refuses the partisan defense. These are the loud public accusations the standard did not count, debunked, overstated, unadjudicated, or simply policy rather than conduct, named openly so the score rests only on what is actually established. The same discipline is applied to every record, on every side.
| Accusation | Verdict | Why it's set aside |
|---|---|---|
| Greene personally 'engaged in insurrection' on January 6 and is therefore constitutionally disqualified from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. | unproven legal conclusion | A 14th Amendment ballot challenge brought by Free Speech for People was litigated and lost. Georgia Administrative Law Judge Charles R. Beaudrot ruled (May 6, 2022) the evidence was 'insufficient' to show Greene 'engaged' in insurrection, found no evidence she participated in the Capitol attack or communicated directives to those who did, and noted her heated rhetoric is First Amendment-protected; the Secretary of State affirmed and kept her on the ballot. The disqualification accusation is an unadjudicated/rejected legal conclusion, distinct from her separately-scored statements about Jan. 6. (lawandcrime.com, NPR, ABC News, 2022) |
| Greene gave a 'reconnaissance' or 'insurrection' tour of the Capitol to rioters on January 5, 2021. | dismissed allegation | The reconnaissance-tour allegation was raised by Rep. Mikie Sherrill and 33 Democrats and centered on Rep. Barry Loudermilk, not Greene; U.S. Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger reviewed the footage and found 'no evidence' of any reconnaissance tour or suspicious activity even as to Loudermilk. Greene was never tied to any such tour by evidence and denied it. The claim as applied to her is an unsupported, dismissed allegation. (House Administration Committee / Capitol Police 2022; CNN 2022; Salon 2021) |
| Greene literally said or typed the phrase 'Jewish space lasers' (sometimes 'to cause California wildfires'). | overstated | Snopes rated the verbatim-quote version a 'Mixture': Greene never wrote the phrase 'Jewish space lasers.' Her real 2018 Facebook post speculated about space-based 'lasers or blue beams' and named Rothschild Inc. The underlying conduct - amplifying a conspiracy with antisemitic lineage - is established and is properly scored elsewhere; only the exact-words attribution is overstated. Set aside the misquote, not the documented conduct. (Snopes; Newsweek; Washington Post 2024) |
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 in deficit: Honesty, Accountability, Moral Judgment, Selfless Service. The documented falsehood pattern and the absence of own-side accountability pull hard toward the opposites (Deceit, Blame-shifting). What keeps it off the floor is Courage-of-conviction and Presence, she shows up and does not hide her positions, but conviction without Honesty or sound Moral Judgment is not the loyalty the pillar measures. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 2 | why?Attributes in deficit: Honesty, Humility, Self-Reflection, Moral Clarity. The persistence of false claims after correction is the opposite of Teachability and Self-Reflection; the conspiracy-amplification record is the opposite of Love-of-Truth-as-self-discipline. Authenticity and Conviction are present, but aimed without the truthfulness the pillar requires, they deepen rather than redeem the deficit. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 2 | why?Attributes in deficit: Empathy, Protection, Stewardship, Temperance. The discretion-to-harm record, targeting identifiable persons, the violence-adjacent posts, is the direct opposite of Protection and Empathy. Influence used to wound rather than shield is the core failure this pillar exists to catch. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 2 | why?Attributes in deficit: Justice, Love of Truth, Compassion, Moral Courage-rightly-aimed. The legacy on the documented conduct record is one a parent would not want a child to model: dehumanizing rhetoric and falsehood normalized. Conviction and Generosity-to-allies do not offset a record that, on conduct, tends toward Injustice and contempt for truth. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 9/40 |
Total 9/40, Unfit. The pillars run lower than even the conduct composite because the character deficits (Honesty, Empathy, Protection, Love of Truth) are precisely the foundational attributes the pillars exist to weigh, and the documented conduct contradicts them directly. Policy and party are excluded; this is a judgment on conduct and character only.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“There is an Islamic invasion of our government.”
Pre-office social-media commentary, part of a documented anti-Muslim rhetoric pattern · ADL compilation of Greene statements · CONTESTED · cite
“January 6, 2021 was a peaceful protest.”
Public characterization of the January 6 Capitol attack, contradicted by the convictions and the documented record · Contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
“I have signed articles of impeachment against President Biden.”
Announcement of impeachment articles, a policy/oversight act recorded here as context, NOT scored in either direction · House office statement · CIVIC · cite
“I am proud to chair the DOGE Subcommittee.”
Announcement of subcommittee chairmanship, 119th Congress · House office statement · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974, Milledgeville, Georgia). U.S. Representative for Georgia's 14th district since January 3, 2021. University of Georgia, B.B.A. in business administration, 1996. Pre-political career in the family construction business (Taylor Commercial) and in fitness. Elected in 2020 and re-elected in 2022 and 2024. Married Perry Greene in 1995 (divorced 2022); three children. Chairs the DOGE Subcommittee in the 119th Congress.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
A bottom-quartile bipartisan record with little cross-aisle authorship, a coalition fact, not a character score. On February 4, 2021 the House voted 230-199 (eleven Republicans joining) to remove her from her committee assignments; the action is recorded here as CONTEXT for the underlying conduct (her rhetoric and amplified conspiracy content), not as a scored policy or party event. She has filed impeachment articles against executive officials across the 117th-119th Congresses; those filings are policy/oversight acts the framework refuses to grade in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
The conduct-relevant moments are scored as conduct, never as policy. Pre-office (2018-2019): a documented social-media record of anti-Muslim and conspiracy ('Islamic invasion,' QAnon-associated) content, including approving reactions to suggestions of violence against sitting members of Congress, disavowed only after public exposure. January 6, 2021 and after: public characterization of the Capitol attack as a 'peaceful protest,' contradicted by the convictions and the record (her STATEMENTS are scored as conduct; the certification vote itself is policy and is not graded). Her impeachment filings against executive officials are excluded entirely as policy/oversight.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
The rhetoric record is the heart of the conduct case and is graded harshly because it is documented conduct, not opinion. The pattern includes dehumanizing characterizations of whole religious and ethnic groups, amplification of conspiracy material naming real people, and confrontational targeting of identifiable persons (including a school-shooting survivor). Mitigation is recorded where it exists, some pre-office posts were disavowed after exposure, but disavowal tempers rather than erases conduct already on the record.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Net worth estimated at roughly $10-30M, originating in the pre-office family construction business (Taylor Commercial), pre/non-office wealth, not office-driven enrichment, and NOT penalized as a breach. The old build's 'constituent-disconnect' deduction on raw wealth status was policy/wealth-status contamination and has been removed; M11 was re-scored 5->6 accordingly. No adjudicated finding of an office-attributable enrichment breach or ethics sanction appears on the disclosure record.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
FLAG criterion 10, sustained enemy-making / incitement, confirmed and capping, grounded on IN-OFFICE conduct: the multi-year in-office pattern of dehumanizing rhetoric and enemy-framing of opponents and fellow citizens documented in the flag (2021 Holocaust comparisons, 2022-2023 "party of pedophiles"/"groomers," recurring "national divorce" 2023-2025). The pre-office violence-adjacent social-media material is documented as context only and is NOT the flag basis, because severity flags rest on conduct connected to the office. NOT counted toward severity: her impeachment filings, her committee-removal (context only), her party-line voting, or her policy positions, all excluded by the Doctrine's refusal to grade policy or party. Flag count: 1 (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Greene places at the Unfit/Failing tier on conduct and character, and the reason matters: the Doctrine does not score her policy, her party, her impeachment filings, or the committee-removal vote. What it does score, the documented falsehood pattern, the dehumanizing rhetoric, the discretion repeatedly used to harm identifiable persons, the pre-office violence-adjacent posts, is enough on its own. Where the old build leaned on policy and raw-wealth contamination, those deductions were removed (M01 and M07 re-grounded on conduct, M11 re-scored off wealth status). The record still does not clear the bar, because the conduct record is the disqualifier and it stands without the policy crutches.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · H.Res.72, committee removal (117th Congress)
Tier 2: ADL, compilation of Greene statements · FactCheck.org, Greene fact-checks
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.