Composite 4.7 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 516, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
- U.S. Military Academy (West Point), B.S. 2004; commissioned into the U.S. Army
- AH-64 Apache helicopter pilot; one deployment to Iraq (55 combat air missions)
- Two deployments to Saudi Arabia as a Diplomatic Liaison Officer
- Honorably discharged at the rank of Captain, 2012
Service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. Character demonstrated within it is scored only where it shows up as conduct of office. The badge contextualizes the record; it 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 | 4 | why?No process-subversion conduct: Hunt was a private citizen (not in Congress) during the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and the Jan 6 2021 certification, so no crit-8 attaches. The genuine oath-fidelity drag is the sustained abandonment of the core constitutional duty of the office, voting, having missed 92% of House votes in 2026 (career ~20%, vs. a 2% median) while running for a different seat. That is dereliction of the seat's primary function, not policy. Held in the lower-middle, not the floor, because no affirmative subversion of a constitutional purpose is documented. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?A thin cross-aisle record with no signature bipartisan architecture, further hollowed by an attendance record that removed him from the floor where institution-over-party work happens. No documented refusal to let the other side win, but also little affirmative bridge-building. Lower-middle on conduct, not ideology. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented anti-belonging conduct, no instance of casting constituents or opponents as people who do not belong. Ordinary partisan policy contrast ('zombie' attack on a primary rival) is sharp politics, not a personhood denial. Default-positive absent documented breach. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics; no criterion-class conduct. The record shows attendance failure, not abuse of office against others. Held at upper-middle absent any affirmative oath-protective act to lift it higher. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Combative campaign rhetoric (the 'zombie' line against the incumbent he challenged) sits within ordinary primary heat and does not form a documented enemy-making pattern, so no crit-10. No sustained record of restraint to push the score above the middle either. Net middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?The Office of Congressional Ethics found 'substantial reason to believe' campaign funds were used for private-club membership (~$74K at the Post Oak Hotel, incl. Oak Room club dues). Hunt, his wife, and two staff declined to be interviewed by OCE. The House Ethics Committee later cleared him of wrongdoing but found his campaign 'did not fully comply' with standards. Under the evidentiary rule this is a weighed appearance-concern (resolved, not a finding), and the non-cooperation with the ethics body is a real accountability drag. Lower-middle. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?No documented instance of calling out his own side at personal cost, the higher active-duty bar is unmet. Absent evidence of independent in-party accountability, this stays in the lower-middle. Not penalized for alignment itself (contamination guard); scored only on the absence of documented costly self-correction. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?The discretion test, does he use the office's latitude for duty or for self, runs against him here: missing 92% of 2026 votes (and ~30% of committee hearings since 2023) to pursue a higher office is the office's discretion exercised for personal advancement over the duty owed to the seat. He defended the absences rather than treating them as a cost. Lower-middle. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; the public persona and the reported off-camera conduct do not show a documented divergence. Default-middle absent affirmative evidence in either direction. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 4 | why?Constituent fidelity is the measure most directly hit by the attendance record: TX-38 went largely unrepresented on the House floor through 2026 while he campaigned statewide for the Senate. Choosing a different electorate over the duty owed to current constituents is a representation-fidelity drag. Lower-middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?Scored only on office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The one office-channel self-dealing concern is the campaign-fund spending on private-club membership flagged by OCE; the House Ethics Committee cleared him of a violation, so it is weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. No documented family-payment, office-info-trade, or foreign-government revenue. Middle, reflecting the unresolved appearance rather than a proven breach. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional-stewardship drag: chronic absence repeatedly left the chamber short and reportedly nearly flipped floor outcomes, treating the institution's regular order as secondary to a personal campaign. Decorum in the narrow sense is intact, but the duty to show up and maintain the institution's functioning is not. Lower-middle. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern on record. Campaign attacks are sharp but not catalogued as a falsehood pattern. Upper-middle absent a documented truthfulness breach; not elevated higher without an affirmative record of correcting the record against interest. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?Substance-over-talking-points is undercut by the committee record, roughly 30% of Natural Resources hearings and markups missed since 2023, which limits the demonstrated legislative mastery the measure rewards. A West Point / Army-aviation background and energy-policy focus are real, but the legislative-work attendance gap caps this at the 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 |
|---|---|---|
| M08/M01/M10 | Missed 92% of U.S. House votes in 2026 (career ~20%, vs. ~2% median) while campaigning for a U.S. Senate seat ↳ Discretion Test / dereliction of the seat's core duty | No process-subversion; he was a sitting member who attended early-term votes at a higher rate |
| M06 | OCE found 'substantial reason to believe' ~$74K campaign funds went to Post Oak Hotel / Oak Room private-club membership; Hunt and staff declined OCE interviews ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety + non-cooperation with the ethics body | House Ethics Committee cleared him of a violation (found campaign 'did not fully comply'); weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding |
| M14 | Missed ~30% of Natural Resources Committee hearings and markups since 2023 ↳ Legislative-mastery / committee-duty gap | Substantive energy-policy focus; military/engineering background |
| M02 | Thin cross-aisle record with no signature bipartisan legislation; attendance removed him from floor work ↳ Institution-over-party bridge-building (conduct, not ideology) | - |
| Pillar I | Attendance dereliction is a loyalty-to-the-seat drag, the seat's primary duty (voting) was set aside for personal advancement ↳ Selfless Service vs. Self-Interest | Honorable prior military service contextualizes character but is not scored as conduct of office |
| Pillar III | Constituent-representation gap during the campaign year + the campaign-fund appearance-concern ↳ Stewardship / Reliability drag | No documented exploitation of office against others; ethics matter resolved without a violation finding |
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
| 4 | why?Attributes: Selfless Service, Steadiness, Loyalty to the seat. Honorable military service speaks to Courage, but the conduct in office shows a drag toward Self-Interest, the seat's core duty (showing up to vote and to committee) was repeatedly set aside for a personal campaign for higher office. Held in the lower-middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. He defended the missed votes rather than treating them as a failing, and his camp declined to engage the OCE, limited self-correction. No documented dishonesty pattern keeps it at the middle rather than lower. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, Protection. No documented exploitation of office against others (no crit-class abuse), which holds the floor up; but the constituent-representation gap and the campaign-fund appearance-concern are genuine Stewardship drags. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice. An early-career record without a defining institutional-fidelity moment, shadowed by the attendance and ethics-appearance concerns. Middle, neither a strong legacy nor a disqualifying one on the documented conduct. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 19/40 |
Total 19/40, Adequate-to-mixed. The pillars track the conduct composite: no severity-class abuse, but a consistent set of duty-of-the-seat drags (attendance, committee attendance, the resolved ethics-appearance matter) that keep every pillar in the middle band.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I have been running my campaign for a Senate seat all across Texas.”
Defending his missed House votes amid scrutiny during the GOP Senate primary · CBS Texas / Texas Tribune · CONTESTED · cite
“All of the Hunt for Congress payments to the Post Oak Hotel, including for membership in the Post Oak Club, were exclusively for campaign-related purposes and not for any personal purposes.”
Counsel's written response to the Office of Congressional Ethics inquiry · Texas Tribune, OCE coverage · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Wesley Wallace Hunt (born November 13, 1981). U.S. Representative for Texas's 38th congressional district since January 3, 2023; member of the House Judiciary and Natural Resources Committees. West Point graduate (B.S. 2004); U.S. Army AH-64 Apache pilot 2004–2012, retiring as Captain, with an Iraq deployment and two Saudi Arabia diplomatic-liaison tours; later Cornell graduate degrees. Lost the 2020 TX-7 general election before winning the new TX-38 seat in 2022. Placed third in the March 2026 Republican U.S. Senate primary.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Sitting first-/second-term House Republican; committees Judiciary and Natural Resources. No signature bipartisan or landmark legislation on record to date. The defining conduct datum of the current term is attendance: 92% of 2026 House votes missed during his Senate primary run (career ~20%, vs. a ~2% chamber median per GovTrack), plus roughly 30% of Natural Resources Committee hearings and markups missed since 2023. Policy positions (energy, judiciary) are NOT graded here in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
No process-subversion conduct: Hunt was not a member of Congress during the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus or the January 6, 2021 certification (he lost the 2020 TX-7 race and was sworn in only in 2023), so neither attaches to him. The relevant institutional datum of his tenure is the opposite kind, chronic non-attendance that, per reporting, repeatedly left the chamber short on contested floor votes.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Combative primary-campaign rhetoric (notably the 'zombie' line against the incumbent he challenged) sits within ordinary partisan heat and does not form a documented enemy-making or incitement pattern; no criterion-10 conduct is established. No documented personhood-denial of constituents or opponents.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The one office-channel concern is campaign-fund spending: the Office of Congressional Ethics found 'substantial reason to believe' ~$74,000 in campaign funds went to the Post Oak Hotel, including Oak Room private-club membership dues, between 2022 and 2024. Hunt, his wife, and two staffers declined OCE interviews. The House Ethics Committee cleared him of a violation in December 2024 while noting his campaign 'did not fully comply' with the standards. Under the evidentiary rule this is a weighed appearance-concern, not a finding; the non-cooperation with OCE is a separate accountability drag. Raw personal wealth is not scored.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Hunt was not in Congress for the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus or the January 6, 2021 certification, so no Criterion-8 process-subversion attaches. No documented sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern (Criterion 10), campaign rhetoric stays within ordinary partisan contrast. Flag count: zero. The record's drags are duty-of-the-seat conduct (attendance, committee attendance) and a resolved ethics-appearance matter, none of which rise to a severity flag.
7. What The Framework Says
Hunt's record on the fixed conduct standard is mixed and duty-centered rather than abuse-centered. No severity-class conduct exists: he could not have signed the 2020 amicus or participated in the Jan 6 certification, and there is no documented enemy-making pattern. What weighs against him is the conduct of the seat itself, missing 92% of 2026 House votes (and ~30% of committee work since 2023) to campaign for a different office, which the discretion, constituent-fidelity, and institutional-stewardship measures all register, plus a resolved-but-uncooperative campaign-fund ethics-appearance concern. Honest middle: no finding of wrongdoing, but a thin record of affirmative oath-protective conduct and a real pattern of setting the seat's duties aside for personal advancement.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · Office of Congressional Ethics referral (via Texas Tribune)
Tier 2: Texas Tribune, missed-votes scrutiny · Punchbowl News, committee voting record · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Wikipedia · House office, About
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.