Composite 5.37 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
A first-term record too thin to clear the support bar on documented conduct. No criterion-class severity flags: seated January 2025, he could not have signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and was not present for the 2021 certification, so the process-subversion and incitement triggers do not attach. What is on the record is a clean personal-ethics sheet, a federal-prosecutor command of his subject matter, and an immigration-rhetoric register ("illegal invaders," "the worst of the worst") that runs hot but stays in the realm of policy heat rather than a documented enemy-making pattern. Honest middle, held below support for want of evidence either way, not a finding against him, a record not yet written.
- No military service on record
No military service. Brad Knott's relevant public-service background is civilian: Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of North Carolina (2016-2023). That prosecutorial record is treated as professional context, not scored as a badge; the conduct demonstrated within it is weighed under M08 and M14 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.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 6 | why?Oath fidelity. No documented defense of a constitutional limit at personal cost, and no documented
subversion either. Seated January 2025, he was not present for the 2021 certification and could not have
signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, neither the credit nor the criterion-8 cap
attaches. Routine partisan voting alignment is NOT scored here (contamination guard). Middle, for absence
of a documented stand in either direction in a first term.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Institution over party. No Lugar Bipartisan Index score has published for a freshman this early, and the
visible legislative posture is messaging-forward and party-aligned rather than cross-aisle. Not penalized
as a breach, caucus alignment is not a conduct fault, but no documented country-over-party episode to
credit. Middle, evidence-thin.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?Persons of equal worth. The immigration register runs hot, "illegal invaders," "the worst of the worst", aimed at a class defined by alleged criminal conduct rather than at citizens or named opponents as people
who do not belong. It is charged-claim territory but reads as policy heat, not a documented anti-belonging
pattern. Held at the middle: real rhetorical drag, no criterion-10 trigger.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?Abuse of power. No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-8 process-subversion
conduct on the record (he was not seated when the December 2020 amicus circulated). As a former federal
prosecutor his enforcement framing is aggressive but directed at policy, not at political opponents. Clean
on this axis; middle for a short, unproven record.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Rhetorical restraint. Combative messaging that casts the opposing party as prioritizing "foreign criminals"
over citizens, heated and accusatory, within the bounds of ordinary partisan attack rather than a
sustained dehumanizing pattern. A genuine restraint drag, weighed, not capped. Middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?Fiduciary appearance. No ethics matter, investigation, or sanction documented against him; he sits ON the
House Ethics Committee, which is not a mark against him. No appearance-concern to weigh. Held at the middle
only because a first-term disclosure history is too short to affirmatively credit clean stewardship.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?Calling out one's own side at cost (the active-duty standard). No documented instance of breaking with his
own party or administration when it would cost him. The visible posture is consistent message discipline
with the majority. Below middle: the higher bar is unmet, with no countervailing evidence yet.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?Discretion test, using power for others over self. Seven-plus years as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern
District of NC is public-facing service, but no single documented act of declining advantage for principle
is on record. Middle: a service background without a sharp discretion anchor to score.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?Public/private consistency. No documented gap between an off-camera reputation and the on-camera one, and
no documented hypocrisy. Too short a record to credit affirmatively; held at the neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituent fidelity. Missed roughly 1% of roll-call votes (6 of 537) through May 2026, diligent
attendance. No documented donor-capture conflict. The aggressive national-messaging tilt is a mild
reliability note vs. district-service focus, not a breach. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?Self-enrichment (office-attributable ONLY). No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information
trades, or foreign-government revenue. Raw personal wealth is NOT scored (contamination guard). No
office-driven enrichment on the record; upper-middle, clean on the only thing this measure scores.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Institutional decorum. No documented breach of House decorum or rules; also no notable regular-order or
institution-honoring stand to credit. Neutral middle for a first-term member.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?Truthfulness. No sustained documented-falsehood pattern established; the immigration messaging is heated
and selectively framed but not shown to be a pattern of demonstrable falsehood. Middle, evidence-limited.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Substance over talking points. Genuine subject-matter command in criminal-justice and immigration
enforcement from seven-plus years as a federal prosecutor, now applied on Judiciary and Homeland Security.
Real expertise, the strongest documented part of a thin record. 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.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M03 | Immigration rhetoric register, 'illegal invaders,' 'the worst of the worst', aimed at a class defined by alleged criminality ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, charged-claim rhetorical drag | Directed at a conduct-defined class within policy debate, not at citizens or named opponents as people who do not belong; no criterion-10 pattern |
| M05 | Combative party-vs-party framing ('champion foreign criminals,' opponents prioritize illegals over citizens) ↳ rhetorical-restraint drag | Within ordinary partisan attack; not sustained dehumanization |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking with his own side at personal cost ↳ active call-out duty unmet | First-term record; absence of evidence, not evidence of subservience |
| M02 | No published bipartisan index or documented cross-aisle episode; messaging-forward, party-aligned posture ↳ institution-over-party not yet demonstrated | Caucus alignment is not a conduct breach; record simply too short to credit |
| Pillar I | No documented stand for the oath at personal cost in a first term ↳ Trust/Loyalty, unproven | Clean prosecutorial service background contextualizes |
| Pillar II | Hot rhetorical register is a Temperance/Consistency drag against a stated rule-of-law brand ↳ Temperance drag | Stays in policy heat; no dishonesty pattern established |
| Pillar III | National-messaging tilt over documented district-protection stewardship ↳ Stewardship/Reliability note | Strong vote attendance (~1% missed); no exploitation |
| Pillar IV | Legacy not yet written, no durable institutional-fidelity record to weigh ↳ Legacy, indeterminate | No criterion-class conduct dragging it down either |
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, Loyalty, a clean prosecutorial service background and diligent attendance, but no documented stand for the oath at personal cost in a single term. Neutral middle: neither proven steadiness nor any drag toward Self-Interest. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Temperance, genuine conviction on his signature issue, but the hot rhetorical register is a Temperance/Consistency drag against the rule-of-law brand. Held at the middle; no dishonesty pattern, no self-correction event either. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, power used in policy framing rather than against rivals; no Exploitation and no criterion-8 process-subversion. A mild Reliability note for national-messaging tilt. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, a legacy not yet written. No durable institutional-fidelity record to credit, and no criterion-class conduct to condemn. Indeterminate middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 20/40 |
Total 20/40, Adequate-indeterminate. The pillars sit at the neutral middle because this is a first-term record: real subject-matter command and clean ethics, but no proven oath-cost stand and a hot rhetorical register that keeps it from rising.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“America's courageous ICE agents put their lives on the line every day to uphold the rule of law and protect our citizens from violent, criminal illegal aliens.”
Statement on ICE enforcement · knott.house.gov press · CONTESTED · cite
“A uniform lack of respect for American immigration laws among illegal aliens.”
Breitbart op-ed on his prosecutorial experience · Breitbart, May 7 2025 · CONTESTED · cite
“Tougher sentences for criminal illegal aliens convicted of felonies prior to deportation.”
Introducing enforcement legislation as a former federal prosecutor · Daily Caller, July 24 2025 · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
John Bradford "Brad" Knott (born April 17, 1986, Raleigh, NC). U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 13th congressional district since January 3, 2025; first term. Republican. B.A. Baylor University; J.D. Wake Forest University. Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of North Carolina, 2016-2023, prosecuting drug-trafficking, gang, and organized-crime cases. Committees in the 119th Congress: Judiciary; Homeland Security; Transportation & Infrastructure; Ethics. Up for reelection November 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
First-term Republican; record dominated by immigration-enforcement and criminal-justice messaging drawing on a prosecutorial background. No published Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index score yet (too early in a freshman term). Roll-call attendance strong, roughly 1% of votes missed (6 of 537) through May 2026. Signature bills focus on enhanced sentencing and removal of criminal aliens. Policy content is not graded in either direction here; only conduct and rhetoric are scored.
3. Constitutional Moments
None of constitutional weight on the record, in either direction. Seated January 2025, Knott was not present for the January 6, 2021 certification and could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, both criterion-8 triggers are foreclosed by timeline. No documented oath-cost stand against his own side to credit either. A record not yet tested at the constitutional level.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
A hot, prosecutorial register on immigration: "illegal invaders," "the worst of the worst," and party-vs-party framing that casts opponents as prioritizing "foreign criminals" over citizens. Charged-claim territory and a genuine restraint drag (M03/M05), but aimed at a conduct-defined class within policy debate rather than at citizens or named opponents as people who do not belong, it does not rise to a documented criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. Weighed honestly, not capped.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented ethics matter, investigation, or sanction against him; his seat on the House Ethics Committee is a duty, not a mark. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. Raw personal wealth is not scored. Clean on every office-attributable enrichment axis, on a first-term disclosure history that is simply short.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Critically, the two timeline-gated triggers do not attach: seated January 2025, Knott could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and was not present for the 2021 certification. The immigration rhetoric is weighed as a charged-claim drag, not a criterion-10 incitement pattern. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Brad Knott's is a first-term record too thin to support. The honest read: clean personal ethics, real subject-matter command from seven-plus years as a federal prosecutor, diligent attendance, set against a hot immigration-rhetoric register and the simple absence of any documented oath-cost stand. No severity flags attach; the December 2020 amicus and the 2021 certification both predate his seat. The standard does not punish a record that has not yet been written, but it cannot credit one either. Held below support, awaiting evidence.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Clerk member profile
Tier 2: Ballotpedia · GovTrack voting record
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.