Composite 5.83 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 609, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service record. Grace Meng is a former attorney and New York State Assembly member (2009-2012) prior to her election to Congress. No service badge is scored; only conduct in office is graded.
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?No documented breach of the oath and no process-subversion conduct. As a Democrat first seated in 2013,
she could not and did not sign the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a House-Republican filing),
and no fake-elector or election-overturning conduct appears on her record. Held at a sound middle rather
than higher because the record shows ordinary institutional service without a documented, costly oath-over-self
stand of the kind that earns the apex tier. Impeachment and certification votes are excluded as the
constitutional process working and are not scored here.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index for the 118th Congress placed her below the historical average (score
approx. -0.43, ranked ~208th in the House), a below-median but not extreme bipartisanship posture. She has
worked across the aisle on discrete items (the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act passed the Senate 94-1; a bipartisan
hate-crimes commission bill with Republican co-sponsors), which keeps this off the floor. Net: an honest middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. Her signature work, anti-hate-crime legislation, is framed around protecting belonging. One sharply partisan line attributing
anti-Asian violence to "the former president and his Congressional Republican enablers" is heated political
criticism tied to a documented policy harm, not a documented anti-belonging pattern, and is weighed as ordinary
partisan heat rather than criterion-class conduct. Sound middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals and no process-subversion conduct. No criterion-class
finding. Held at a middle rather than higher absent an affirmative documented instance of constraining the
misuse of state power at personal cost.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?General rhetorical restraint across a long tenure, with the rhetoric centered on victim protection rather than
opponent demonization. The strongest partisan line ("Republican enablers") is heated but issue-anchored. No
sustained inflammatory or dehumanizing pattern documented. Net middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No House Ethics finding, no Office of Congressional Conduct referral, and no sanction against Meng on record.
The only proximate appearance-concerns are derivative and not her own conduct: her father Jimmy Meng pleaded
guilty to wire fraud in 2012 (a family matter, before/outside her federal office), and a former NY-Assembly-era
staffer (Linda Sun) was federally charged in 2024 as an unregistered PRC agent, Meng was not charged and
distanced herself from the associated organizations. Weighed as appearance-concerns under the evidentiary rule, not as findings; held at a sound-but-not-high middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No prominent documented instance of Meng
publicly breaking with her own party or leadership at political cost appears on the record; her cross-aisle
work is collaborative rather than confrontational toward her own side. Held at a middle, no demerit for a
bad act, but no affirmative own-side call-out to credit either.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented discretion-test moment (no record of forgoing a personal benefit or preferential treatment for
the public good, and no documented abuse of discretion either). Neutral middle absent evidence in either
direction.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; no leaked or reported instance of an off-camera posture that
contradicts the public one. Sound middle on a clean but unremarkable record.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Constituent-facing record consistent with a dense urban Queens district (immigrant services, anti-hate-crime
work, local appropriations). No documented donor-over-constituent capture. Sound middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family payments from the office,
office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue attributable to Meng. Her father's separate 2012 wire-fraud
conviction is family conduct, not her office-driven enrichment, and is not penalized here. No documented breach;
held just below apex pending no affirmative clean-stewardship signal.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Routine institutional decorum across a multi-term tenure; no documented breaches of floor or committee decorum,
no spectacle-over-institution conduct on record. Sound middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented pattern of sustained falsehood. Public statements are largely advocacy and constituent-service
framed; the contested "Republican enablers" line is partisan characterization, not a fabricated factual claim.
Sound middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrated substantive command on her signature domain, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act (enacted 2021) and
related hate-crime and AAPI policy, moving real legislation rather than talking points. Held at a sound middle
because the substantive depth is concentrated in a narrower lane rather than across a broad portfolio.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | 118th Congress Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index score approx. -0.43 (ranked ~208th in the House), below the historical average ↳ below-median bipartisanship | Bipartisan wins on discrete items (COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act 94-1 in Senate; bipartisan hate-crimes commission bill) |
| M07 | No documented instance of publicly breaking with her own party/leadership at political cost ↳ active own-side call-out duty unmet on the record | No bad act either, neutral, not a demerit for misconduct |
| M06 | Derivative appearance-concerns: father's 2012 wire-fraud guilty plea (family, pre/outside office) and a former Assembly-era staffer (Linda Sun) charged in 2024 as an unregistered PRC agent ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety (derivative) | Meng not charged in either matter; distanced herself from the associated organizations, weighed as appearance only, not a 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
| 6 | why?Attributes: steadiness and constituent loyalty across a multi-term tenure with no documented breaches of trust; held at a middle by the absence of a documented costly oath-over-self stand and a below-median bipartisanship posture (drag toward Self-Interest is minor, not demonstrated). |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction and Authenticity on her signature anti-hate-crime work; no documented integrity breach. Held at a middle because the record is advocacy-consistent rather than marked by documented self-correction or own-side courage. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Protection, her legislative identity is built around shielding a vulnerable community from violence. No documented Exploitation. Held at a middle by the narrowness of the demonstrated portfolio and the absence of a power-constraining stand at cost. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: a clean, service-oriented legacy with no Severity-class conduct; the derivative appearance-concerns (father, former staffer) and below-median bipartisanship temper but do not lower a fundamentally sound record. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 24/40 |
Total 24/40, Adequate. A clean conduct record without the extraordinary character evidence that lifts the strongest dossiers; no drags severe enough to pull any pillar below the middle.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The former president and his Congressional Republican enablers trafficked racist, bigoted terms to describe COVID-19. In doing so, their language stoked people's fears and created an atmosphere of intolerance and violence, which persists even today.”
Statement on House passage of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act · Meng House office press release · CONTESTED · cite
“Hate against any community is hate against all of us.”
Advocacy for the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act amid a surge in anti-Asian violence · NPR interview · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Grace Meng (born October 1, 1975). U.S. Representative for New York's 6th congressional district (Queens) since January 2013, the first Asian American elected to Congress from New York. Former attorney; New York State Assembly member 2009-2012. First Vice Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). Running for re-election in the June 2026 Democratic primary.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index for the 118th Congress placed her below the historical average (approx. -0.43, ~208th in the House), a below-median but not extreme bipartisanship posture. Signature achievement: the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act (enacted May 2021, Senate 94-1), co-led with Sen. Mazie Hirono. Additional work on hate-crime data and a proposed national commission on hate crimes (bipartisan co-sponsors). Policy positions are not scored in either direction; only conduct is graded.
3. Constitutional Moments
No documented process-subversion or anti-belonging criterion conduct. As a Democrat first seated in 2013, she did not and could not sign the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a House-Republican filing). Certification and impeachment votes are excluded from conduct scoring as the constitutional process operating normally.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Rhetoric is centered on victim protection and anti-hate advocacy rather than opponent demonization. The strongest partisan line, attributing anti-Asian violence to "the former president and his Congressional Republican enablers", is heated political criticism anchored to a documented policy harm, weighed as ordinary partisan heat, not a documented anti-belonging or incitement pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No House Ethics finding, Office of Congressional Conduct referral, or sanction against Meng on record. Two derivative appearance-concerns exist and are weighed as appearances, not findings: her father Jimmy Meng's 2012 federal wire-fraud guilty plea (a family matter, before/outside her federal office), and a former NY-Assembly-era staffer (Linda Sun) federally charged in 2024 as an unregistered agent of the PRC, Meng was not charged and distanced herself from the associated organizations. No documented office-attributable enrichment.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion (she could not have signed the 2020 Texas v. PA amicus and no fake-elector or election-overturning conduct appears), and no sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern. The only proximate concerns are derivative and uncharged-as-to-her, weighed as appearances. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
A clean, unremarkable conduct record. Meng's identity is built around protecting a vulnerable community from violence, and the standard credits that substantive work while declining to grade the underlying policy. There is no documented misconduct, no ethics finding, and no Severity-class conduct; equally, there is no extraordinary oath-over-self or own-side-call-out evidence of the kind that lifts the strongest dossiers, and her bipartisanship index sits below the historical median. The derivative appearance-concerns (her father's conviction, a former staffer's indictment) are weighed honestly as appearances, not findings. Net: Adequate, sound but not distinguished.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Clerk financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures (Clerk) · GovTrack · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.