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

← Roster

673
Sound
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
26/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 6.55 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

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

Lands in the Sound band at credit 673, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country
None · N/A · N/A

Sarah McBride has no military service record. This field is noted for completeness; it carries no score weight in either direction. Prior public service: Delaware State Senate 2021-2024 (state senator), and earlier Human Rights Campaign communications work.

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 6
why?
Freshman seated January 2025, no opportunity yet for an apex constitutional-fidelity stand, and none is held against her. NOT scored on any certification, impeachment, or confirmation vote (the constitutional process working is not a conduct mark). No process-subversion conduct of any kind: she was seated after December 2020 and could not have signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus. The affirmative datum is her stated posture of following institutional rules even where she disagrees ("I will follow the rules outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them"). Honest middle pending a longer record. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 7
why?
Demonstrated cross-party legislating early in a first term: her first bill to pass the House (Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act, H.R.3339) was led with Republicans Mike Flood and Mike Lawler and passed unanimously; she co-led the Ending Scam Credit Repair Act with Young Kim (R) and the Biotechnology for All High School Students Act with Rich McCormick (R). Country/institution-over-tribe conduct, evidenced rather than asserted. Above midline; not higher only because the tenure is short. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 8
why?
Subjected to sustained personal provocation (a subcommittee chair misgendering her on the record; a colleague's resolution explicitly aimed at her), she answered with composure rather than contempt, "Thank you, Madam Chair", and declined to cast opponents as illegitimate persons. Persons-of-equal-worth conduct held under pressure that would test most officeholders. High mark for restraint; reserved a notch below apex pending a longer record. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 6
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics; no criterion-class conduct. She has been the target of, not the author of, official-power pressure. Default-to-middle for a short record with no abuse on file; nothing yet that would push it higher. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 7
why?
Rhetorical restraint is the through-line of her public conduct: "I'm not here to fight about bathrooms. I'm here to fight for Delawareans." No documented pattern of casting citizens or opponents as enemies who do not belong; her sharpest public lines stay within policy disagreement. Upper-middle. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 7
why?
No ethics complaint, investigation, or sanction on record; no appearance-of-impropriety finding. Diligence indicators are strong, 0.7% missed roll-call votes (4 of 553), well below the chamber median. Clean fiduciary-conduct record; held at upper-middle rather than higher only because the track record is short. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 5
why?
The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance yet of McBride breaking with her party leadership or co-partisans at political cost, neither a mark against her character nor evidence of the harder courage. A genuine honest middle for a freshman: bipartisan co-sponsorship is real but is not the same as the costly own-side call-out. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
No documented instance of using discretionary advantage for personal benefit. The available signal of self-restraint is declining to make institutional fights about herself ("I'm not here to make this about me"). Middle, reflecting limited record rather than any lapse. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
No documented private/public contempt gap; reporting on her off-camera conduct is consistent with her on-camera restraint. No evidence of a two-faced posture either direction. Middle pending the deeper reporting a longer career produces. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 6
why?
Stated and demonstrated constituent focus, repeatedly redirecting national-spotlight fights back to Delaware costs and services; ESCRA (consumer scam-credit-repair) and background-check work track ordinary constituent concerns. No donor-capture or constituent-abandonment evidence. Honest middle for a first term. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 7
why?
M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. None is documented. Raw wealth is explicitly NOT penalized. No office-driven enrichment of any kind on record; upper-middle, with the short tenure keeping it short of the apex. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 7
why?
Institutional decorum is a documented strength: she absorbed on-the-record provocation without disrupting proceedings, stated she would follow chamber rules she disagrees with, and maintained one of the better attendance records in the chamber (0.7% missed). Honors the institution over the spectacle. Upper-middle. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 6
why?
No documented pattern of sustained falsehood or fact-fabrication. The record shows ordinary partisan framing within fact, not a demonstrable disinformation habit. Middle, reflecting the limited window rather than any documented truthfulness breach. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 6
why?
Early evidence of substantive engagement, drafting passable bipartisan legislation (investor access, scam-credit-repair, background checks) and Foreign Affairs Committee work including a January 2026 bipartisan CODEL, over pure messaging. Held at middle because a freshman has not yet built the deep subject-matter command the higher tier requires. [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
M07 No documented instance of calling out her own party/leadership at political cost
↳ active own-side accountability not yet demonstrated
First-term member; absence of evidence, not evidence of failure, neither a character mark against her
M01 No apex constitutional-fidelity stand on record
↳ short tenure, no opportunity yet
Stated rule-following posture; seated 2025, no process-subversion conduct possible
M14 Deep subject-matter command not yet established
↳ freshman substance window
Drafted passable bipartisan legislation early; trajectory positive
M13 Limited public record to assess sustained truthfulness
↳ short observation window
No documented falsehood pattern
M02 Bipartisan record is real but brief
↳ tenure length
First bill passed unanimously with Republican co-leads

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: Steadiness Under Pressure, Courage in Conflict, Composure, the documented strength is absorbing sustained personal provocation (misgendering on the record, a resolution aimed at her) without abandoning decorum or the work. Held below the top tier because the costly own-side loyalty test has not yet arisen.
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: Authenticity, Conviction, Self-Restraint, consistent stated and acted posture of not making institutional fights about herself, and following rules she disagrees with. Short record caps the ceiling; no integrity drag observed.
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: Stewardship, Reliability, Constituent Protection, early consumer-protection and constituent-cost legislation; no Exploitation signal. Middle, reflecting a first-term record rather than a deep one.
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?
6
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Temperance, too early for a durable legacy assessment; the conduct so far is restrained and rule-respecting, with no documented drag toward Ego/Favoritism. Honest middle.
TOTAL: Moderate 26/40

Total 26/40, Adequate-to-Sound on conduct, ceiling set by a short tenure rather than by any documented failing. The restraint-under-provocation evidence is the strongest pillar input; the unmet courage and substance tests are honest gaps, not marks against character.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“Thank you, Madam Chair.”

House Foreign Affairs Europe subcommittee hearing, after the chair misgendered her on the record · Texas Tribune · PRINCIPLED · cite

“I'm not here to fight about bathrooms. I'm here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down the costs facing families. Like all members, I will follow the rules outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them.”

Statement responding to a House resolution barring her from women's restrooms in the Capitol · The Hill · CIVIC · cite

“I'm here to represent my constituents, including LGBTQ constituents, but I'm not here to make this about me.”

Same statement on the bathroom resolution · TIME · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Sarah McBride (born August 9, 1990). U.S. Representative for Delaware's at-large congressional district since January 3, 2025; Democrat. Previously a Delaware State Senator (1st district) 2021-2024 and earlier national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign. She is the first openly transgender member of the United States Congress. Up for reelection in 2026.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Freshman member of the 119th Congress; House Foreign Affairs Committee. Early legislative output is notably bipartisan: the Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act (H.R.3339, led with Reps. Flood (R-NE) and Lawler (R-NY)) passed the House unanimously as her first bill; co-led the Ending Scam Credit Repair Act with Rep. Young Kim (R-CA) and the Biotechnology for All High School Students Act with Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA); original co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. Attendance among the better in the chamber (0.7% missed votes). Bipartisan Index placement not yet established given short tenure. Note: any votes on certification, impeachment, or confirmation are NOT scored as conduct here.

3. Constitutional Moments

No apex constitutional-fidelity stand has yet arisen for a member seated in 2025, and none is held against her. Seated after December 2020, she could not have been a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory; no process-subversion conduct of any kind appears on the record. Her stated institutional posture, following chamber rules she disagrees with rather than disrupting proceedings, is the relevant early conduct datum.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Restraint under provocation is the defining feature of her public conduct. Repeatedly targeted personally, misgendered on the record in committee, named in a resolution barring her from Capitol restrooms, she answered with composure ("Thank you, Madam Chair") and redirected to constituent work rather than escalating ("I'm not here to fight about bathrooms. I'm here to fight for Delawareans"). No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No ethics complaint, investigation, or sanction on record; no appearance-of-impropriety finding. No office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue documented. Raw wealth is not penalized under the standard. Strong diligence indicators (0.7% missed roll-call votes). The fiduciary record is clean for a short tenure.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion (Criterion 8): seated 2025, no Texas v. PA signature possible, no fake-elector or election-overturning conduct. No sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern (Criterion 10): her documented rhetoric is restrained even under sustained personal attack. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

A short but clean conduct record with a genuine strength: composure and institutional respect held under sustained personal provocation, paired with early bipartisan legislating and strong diligence. The honest gaps are tenure-driven, no apex constitutional stand, no costly own-side call-out, and no deep subject-matter command have had time to appear, and none is treated as a character failing. The ceiling here is set by how little record exists, not by anything documented against her. Adequate, trending on conduct; revisit as the record lengthens.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Financial Disclosure (Clerk)

Tier 2: GovTrack member statistics · Ballotpedia

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House member page · Wikipedia

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

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: