DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

667
Adequate
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
27/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 6.48 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.

Lands in the Adequate band at credit 667, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country
U.S. Navy (with U.S. Army Civil Affairs assignment) · Naval officer · 2006–2012

Service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. The character shown within it, the willingness to restate the lawful-orders oath principle under threat, is scored as conduct where it belongs.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 7
why?
Deluzio's public conduct affirmatively centers the constitutional oath rather than personal or factional power. As a veteran he co-signed the November 2025 video restating that service members swear to the Constitution and may refuse unlawful orders, a plain reading of the oath, confirmed as legally accurate by independent fact-checkers, delivered under threat of presidential reprisal. His election-security work (SECURE IT Act) defends the integrity of the constitutional process itself. No process-subversion conduct: seated January 2023, he could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and has no documented election-overturning conduct. Upper-middle; not the apex tier reserved for office-ending sacrifice for the oath. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 6
why?
A documented willingness to legislate across the aisle, the SECURE IT election-cybersecurity bill with David Valadao (R), the bipartisan Public Service Worker Protection Act, and the Shrinkflation Prevention Act with Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez. Tempered honestly by a combative partisan public posture (the "spineless Democratic Party," "wake the hell up" framing) that is directed at his own side's strategy rather than at cooperation itself, but which still reads as movement-building over consensus-seeking. Solid middle, not top-quartile. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 7
why?
Holds open in-person town halls in his district and, per reporting, largely avoided the personal-attack fireworks seen elsewhere, with attendees thanking him for showing up. His heat is aimed at policy and his own party's strategy, not at the personhood or belonging of opponents or citizens. No documented pattern of casting opponents as enemies who don't belong. Upper-middle for accessibility and restraint toward persons. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 7
why?
No documented use of state power to target rivals or to defeat a constitutional purpose. His record runs the other direction, election-security legislation and a public affirmation of the lawful-orders limit on executive power. No criterion-class process-subversion conduct on file. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 6
why?
Sharp, populist rhetoric ("spineless Democratic Party must end," "wake the hell up," "wimpy concessions") that is pointedly aimed inward at his own party's posture and at policy outcomes, not at the legitimacy or belonging of opponents. The combative register is a real intensity note but stays within argument over conduct and strategy rather than enemy-making. Honest middle: forceful but not degrading. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 6
why?
No ethics findings, sanctions, or charged conduct on record. The one genuine fiduciary appearance-concern is an actively traded individual-equity portfolio (~$3.2M tracked, monthly gains/losses reported) held while serving on the Armed Services Committee, a permitted but optics-adverse practice that members increasingly forgo via blind trusts or index funds. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. Solid middle. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 7
why?
The active-duty standard, calling out one's OWN side at cost, is met repeatedly and on the record. Deluzio publicly branded a Senate Democratic shutdown deal "weak" (a roster that included his own state's Sen. Fetterman) and declared from the floor that "the era of the spineless Democratic Party must end." This is directed criticism of his own caucus's leadership and strategy, not safe out-party attack. Genuine, if strategically self-interested as movement-building; held below the top tier because the call-outs align with his own positioning rather than cutting against his interest. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
The discretion test, doing the harder right when an easier path exists. Joining the lawful-orders video and standing behind it after the President labeled it "seditious behavior... punishable by death" shows willingness to hold a principled line under personal threat. Real, but a single recent episode rather than a long documented pattern of costly discretion; solid-middle pending more record. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
No documented gap between a public persona and private conduct, no leaked contempt, no off-camera reversal of stated positions. The on-record posture (economic populism, district-focused) reads consistently across settings. Absence-of-evidence middle, scored conservatively for a short tenure. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 7
why?
A demonstrably constituent-facing record, the House Democrat who secured the most community project funding in the 2026 spending bills, with explicit Western-PA infrastructure and youth-sports/coal-mine hearings. The service orientation toward the represented district is documented and concrete. Upper-middle. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 5
why?
M11 scores office-attributable enrichment only, not raw wealth. No self-dealing, family-payment, office-info, or foreign-government revenue is documented. The drag is the appearance dimension of active individual-stock trading (~$3.2M tracked, recurring six-figure monthly swings) while sitting on Armed Services, a category where members can plausibly access market-moving information. No finding of misuse; scored as a real appearance-of-conflict drag, not a breach. Middle. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 7
why?
Works the institutional process, supported the bipartisan committee-reported NDAA before opposing the floor-amended version, engaged in regular committee markup, and uses formal floor and hearing channels rather than only spectacle. Lowered from the imported 8 to a defensible 7: the "take over the House floor" populist theatrics are within bounds but lean performative. Upper-middle institutional posture. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 6
why?
No documented sustained falsehood pattern. His most-scrutinized recent statement, that service members may refuse unlawful orders, was independently confirmed as legally accurate. Combative framing of opponents' policies is argument, not fabrication. Solid middle, conservative for limited record. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 7
why?
Substantive subject-matter command rather than talking points: Naval Academy graduate and Iraq-deployed officer on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs; a Georgetown Law (magna cum laude) election-law specialist from the Brennan Center and Pitt Cyber who legislates on the cybersecurity of voting systems. The expertise maps directly onto his committee and bill work. Upper-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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M11 Actively traded individual-equity portfolio (~$3.2M tracked; recurring six-figure monthly gains/losses) held while serving on the House Armed Services Committee
↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-conflict, committee-adjacent stock trading
No documented self-dealing, office-info trade, or breach finding; permitted practice scored on appearance only
M06 Same active individual-stock trading is an optics-adverse fiduciary practice increasingly avoided via blind trusts or index funds
↳ Fiduciary appearance-concern
No ethics finding or sanction; weighed as appearance, not a violation
M02 Combative inward-partisan posture ('spineless,' 'wake the hell up') reads as movement-building over consensus-seeking despite real bipartisan bills
↳ Cross-aisle posture drag
Concrete bipartisan legislation (SECURE IT w/ Valadao, Public Service Worker Protection Act) keeps it a posture note, not a refusal to cooperate
M05 Sharp populist rhetoric ('wimpy concessions,' 'era of the spineless Democratic Party must end')
↳ Rhetorical intensity
Aimed at policy and his own party's strategy, not at opponents' belonging or legitimacy, argument, not enemy-making
M12 'Take over the House floor' populist theatrics lean performative
↳ Institutional-decorum drag
Within bounds; paired with genuine committee-process engagement
Pillar III Committee-adjacent active stock trading (Stewardship) is the principal fiduciary distance from a clean trustee posture
↳ Stewardship drag
Strong constituent Protection via record community-project funding; no Exploitation documented
Pillar II Combative populist register is a Temperance note
↳ Temperance drag
Authenticity and Conviction are consistent; the heat is directed at strategy, not persons

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.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
7
why?
Attributes: Courage, Selfless Service, Loyalty to the oath, Naval Academy officer with an Iraq deployment who publicly restated the lawful-orders principle under a presidential threat of prosecution. Held at 7 by a relatively short tenure rather than any drag toward Self-Interest or Cowardice.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
7
why?
Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, a consistent, self-declared economic-populist identity carried into floor conduct and willingness to criticize his own party. A modest Temperance drag from the combative register keeps it below 8.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
6
why?
Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, record community-project funding for his district and election-security legislation that protects the constitutional process. The principal drag is the committee-adjacent active stock trading (a Stewardship/appearance concern), with no documented Exploitation.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
7
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Love of Truth, defended an accurate constitutional principle under reprisal and calls out his own side at cost. Short record and the trading appearance-concern temper an otherwise clean early legacy.
TOTAL: Moderate 27/40

Total 27/40, Adequate-to-Sound. A clean, oath-centered early record with genuine moral-courage moments, tempered honestly by a combative partisan register and a committee-adjacent active-trading appearance-concern.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“It's a basic constitutional principle of the oath that you have a duty to follow lawful orders and that no service member is ever forced to follow illegal ones.”

Responding to the President's 'sedition' accusation over the veterans' lawful-orders video · WESA, Nov 20 2025 · CIVIC · cite

“The era of the spineless Democratic Party must end.”

House floor remarks calling on his own party to offer a stronger alternative · WESA, March 26 2025 · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

“I think this is what we've come to expect from this leadership.”

Calling a Senate Democratic shutdown-ending deal 'weak' on The Daily Show · WESA, Nov 11 2025 · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

“Let's put country over party and deliver for the good people of Western PA.”

Public statement on district-focused governing posture · RepDeluzio on X · CIVIC · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Christopher Raphael Deluzio (born 1985). U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania's 17th congressional district since January 2023 (118th-119th Congresses). Born in Pittsburgh, raised in Thornburg. U.S. Naval Academy (B.S. 2006); U.S. Navy/Army Civil Affairs officer 2006-2012 with three deployments including a tour in Iraq. Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., magna cum laude, 2013). Voting-rights and election-law attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice and policy director at Pitt Cyber before office. Committees: Armed Services; Veterans' Affairs. Self-described progressive economic populist; founder of the "New Economic Patriots" group.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

A district-service-heavy record: reported as the House Democrat who secured the most community project funding in the 2026 spending bills, with Western-PA infrastructure emphasis. Bipartisan output includes the SECURE IT Act (election-cybersecurity, with David Valadao, R-CA), the Public Service Worker Protection Act, and the Shrinkflation Prevention Act (with Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez, D-WA). On the NDAA he supported the bipartisan committee-reported version and opposed the floor-amended bill, recorded as institutional/process conduct, not scored on policy merits, per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy in either direction.

3. Constitutional Moments

November 2025 lawful-orders video: as one of six veteran/intelligence-background lawmakers, Deluzio restated the oath principle that service members must follow lawful orders and may refuse illegal ones. The President publicly called the video "seditious behavior... punishable by death" and called for arrests; independent fact-checkers (FactCheck.org, PolitiFact) found the claim legally baseless and the lawmakers' statement accurate. Deluzio stood behind the statement. His SECURE IT election-cybersecurity work further reflects a process-integrity orientation toward the constitutional order.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Forceful, populist, and pointedly inward-directed. The signature register, "the era of the spineless Democratic Party must end," "wake the hell up," calling a Senate deal "weak", aims criticism at his own party's strategy and at policy outcomes, not at the belonging or legitimacy of opponents or citizens. The intensity is a real Temperance note but stays within argument over conduct; no documented enemy-making pattern. In town-hall settings he is reported to have largely avoided personal-attack fireworks.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No ethics findings, sanctions, or charged conduct. Estimated net worth ~$4.7M with ~$3.2M in tracked publicly traded assets and recurring six-figure monthly trading activity, held while serving on the House Armed Services Committee. No documented self-dealing, office-information trade, family payment, or foreign-government revenue, the concern is the appearance dimension of committee-adjacent active individual-stock trading, a permitted practice many members now avoid via blind trusts or index funds. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any criterion. Seated January 2023, Deluzio could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and has no election-overturning or process-subversion conduct on record. His sharp rhetoric is policy- and strategy-directed argument, not a sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern. No capping flag. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

An early-tenure record that scores cleanly on the oath itself: a veteran and election-law attorney who publicly affirmed an accurate constitutional principle under a presidential threat of prosecution, secured concrete district funding, and is willing to call out his own party's leadership at some cost. The standard records the honest drags, a combative populist register and a committee-adjacent active-trading appearance-concern, without inflating them into findings. Adequate-to-Sound; a defensible middle pending a longer record. No capping conduct.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures (via OpenSecrets)

Tier 2: FactCheck.org, oath video / sedition claim · WESA (Pittsburgh NPR) coverage

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Wikipedia · House office, votes & legislation · OpenSecrets personal finances

Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: