Composite 5.07 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Does not clear the bar. No Severity-class conduct and no findings, Moore was seated after December 2020 and never signed the Texas v. PA amicus, and no incitement pattern exists. But a two-decade trail of fiduciary appearance-concerns, capped by a confirmed federal STOCK Act disclosure violation and the appearance of office-information trading by the member charged with financial oversight, drags the conduct composite below the support threshold. Capability is real; character-against-the-oath lands short. Not damning, not endorsed.
No military service on record. Career attorney; North Carolina House of Representatives 2003-2025, Speaker of the NC House 2015-2025; U.S. Representative, NC-14, since January 2025.
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?Seated January 2025, could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is absent
from that signatory list, so no Criterion-8 process-subversion attaches. No documented effort to defeat a
constitutional purpose, overturn a certified result, or run out the clock on an appointment. Held to a
middle rather than higher because the surrounding fiduciary record (office-window stock trades, late STOCK
Act disclosure) reflects a posture that treats the office as personal advantage rather than a strict
constitutional trust. Not a finding of subversion, a tempered middle on oath-fidelity.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Freshman House term with a near-perfect attendance record (missed 2 of 553 votes, 0.4%, well under the
chamber median). Too short a federal tenure for a settled bipartisan index; as NC House Speaker he moved
some cross-aisle infrastructure work but governed as a hard partisan leader. Insufficient federal
cross-aisle record either direction, an honest middle, not a credit or a penalty.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong, and no Criterion-10
incitement pattern on record. Equally, no documented high-mark defense of an opponent's standing at personal
cost. Conventional partisan posture without a marked anti-belonging instance, a middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics; no Criterion-class abuse of office to
target opponents. The fiduciary concerns on record are self-enrichment-flavored, not power-against-rivals.
Above the midline on this specific axis, with no high-mark affirmative constraint of power to lift it higher.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetorical record is conventionally partisan but without a documented sustained dehumanization or
enemy-making pattern. No single heated line rises to a Criterion-10 concern, and no high-mark restraint
anchor exists either. Upper-middle by default, restraint without distinction.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?A long pattern of fiduciary appearance-concerns spanning his NC Speakership: the Siler City chicken-plant
DEQ subsidy episode (ethics complaint dismissed 2018; a later complaint filed), legislative-office help
securing a state job for his then-fiancée, a regular practice of steering state dollars to pet projects in
his ~100k-person home county criticized even by fellow Republicans, and a quietly settled 2023 affair
lawsuit. Each is resolved, dismissed, or uncharged, weighed as appearance-concerns, never findings, but
the recurrence of the pattern is itself the drag. No affirmative self-accountability on record to offset it.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?No documented instance of calling out his own side at personal cost, the higher active-duty bar. Equally
no documented capitulation or cover for clear wrongdoing by allies. Absence of evidence either direction on
the courage-to-self-correct axis lands at a neutral middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented instance of declining a preferential benefit available to him for the public good, and no
documented seizing of one either, beyond the financial-trading concerns scored at M11. The discretion test
lacks a clean anchor in either direction, neutral middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No clear documented public/private contempt gap. Reporting on his final Speakership years describes a
transactional governing style but does not establish a deliberate two-faced posture toward constituents.
Neutral middle absent a documented gap.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Standard donor-funded campaign profile without a documented constituent-over-donor break or a documented
donor-capture scandal. The home-county-steering pattern (scored at M06/M11) shows responsiveness skewed to
a narrow base, holding this at the midline rather than above it.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 3 | why?This is the load-bearing conduct concern and it is office-attributable. Moore failed to disclose, within
the STOCK Act deadline, roughly a dozen personal stock trades made around the April 2025 tariff
announcement, a documented disclosure violation. Separately, while serving as Vice Chair of the Financial
Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, he traded in the window around the One Big Beautiful
Bill Act's Medicaid provisions (Centene, UnitedHealth) and bought Intel weeks before a U.S.-Intel
partnership announcement, selling for a profit. His office denied insider trading and no charge has issued, so these are weighed as serious appearance-concerns rather than findings, but appearance of office-information
trading by the very member tasked with financial oversight, plus a confirmed disclosure violation and the
earlier NC campaign-funds-to-self rent payouts, is exactly the office-attributable enrichment M11 measures.
Floored low.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Maintains conventional institutional decorum on the floor without documented spectacle-seeking, but also
without a documented office-over-officeholder high mark. A freshman record without a defining
institutional-fidelity moment in either direction, middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No documented sustained falsehood pattern on the public record, and no high-mark instance of conceding an
uncomfortable truth against interest. Neutral middle on the truth axis.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?An attorney and former decade-long NC House Speaker with real institutional and policy command, now on
Financial Services (Digital Assets / FinTech / AI, Financial Institutions) and Budget. Substantive capacity
is genuine and above the midline; not lifted higher because the financial-oversight role is shadowed by the
personal-trading concerns scored at M11.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M11 | Confirmed STOCK Act disclosure violation, failed to timely report ~12 personal stock trades made around the April 2025 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement ↳ office-attributable disclosure breach | Disclosure eventually filed; no charge issued |
| M11 | While Vice Chair of the Financial Services Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee, traded Centene/UnitedHealth around the OBBBA Medicaid vote and bought Intel ~24 days before a U.S.-Intel partnership announcement, selling for profit ↳ appearance of office-information trading | Office denied insider trading; no charge or finding, weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding |
| M06 | Recurring NC-Speakership ethics appearance-concerns: chicken-plant DEQ subsidy, fiancée state-job assistance, home-county fund steering, settled 2023 affair lawsuit ↳ Fiduciary appearance pattern | Each resolved, dismissed, or uncharged, appearance-concerns, never findings |
| M01 | Fiduciary posture (office-window trades) tempers strict oath-as-trust fidelity ↳ oath-fidelity drag | No process-subversion conduct; not a Criterion-8 concern |
| Pillar III | Office-attributable enrichment appearance (financial-oversight role overlapping personal trades) is the central Stewardship concern ↳ Stewardship/Reliability drag | No finding of exploitation; concerns are appearance-level |
| Pillar IV | A decade-long trail of unforced ethics appearance-concerns shadows the legacy (Integrity) ↳ Integrity drag | No conviction or sustained finding; concerns resolved or uncharged |
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: Steadiness, Selfless Service, Loyalty, near-perfect attendance and durable institutional service show reliability and stamina, but no documented act of selfless service at personal cost lifts it above the midline. The fiduciary posture is a quiet drag toward Self-Interest. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability, a clear governing conviction, but no documented self-reflection or ownership of the recurring ethics concerns. Authenticity present; accountability absent. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, no documented exploitation finding, but the appearance of office-information trading by the member charged with financial oversight is a genuine Stewardship drag. Power not documented as weaponized against rivals. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth, a decade-long, largely unforced trail of ethics appearance-concerns (DEQ subsidy, state-job help, fund steering, affair suit, STOCK Act lapse) shadows the legacy. No conviction or sustained finding keeps it from the floor, but the pattern earns a below-midline mark. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 19/40 |
Total 19/40, Adequate-to-soft. No Severity-class conduct and no findings, but the recurrence of fiduciary appearance-concerns across two decades, capped by a confirmed federal disclosure violation, holds the character pillars at or just below the midline.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“A spokesperson for Moore denied he had taken part in insider trading.”
Response to reporting on August 2025 trades in Intel, Centene, and UnitedHealth made while serving as Vice Chair of the Financial Services Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee · Quiver Quantitative / press aggregation of FD filings · CONTESTED · cite
“Moore did not publicly disclose a dozen stock trades he made throughout early- and mid-April until well after a federal deadline for doing so.”
Fortune reporting on a potential STOCK Act violation around the April 2025 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement · Fortune, June 16 2025 · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Timothy Keith Moore (born 1970). U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 14th Congressional District since January 3, 2025. Previously a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives from 2003 to 2025 and Speaker of the NC House from 2015 to 2025, the longest-serving Speaker in state history. Career attorney (Cleveland County). Member, House Committees on Financial Services and the Budget; Vice Chair, Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Freshman U.S. House member (119th Congress) with a near-perfect attendance record (missed 2 of 553 roll-call votes through May 2026, 0.4%, under the chamber median). Seats: Financial Services (Digital Assets/FinTech/AI and Financial Institutions subcommittees; Vice Chair, Oversight & Investigations) and Budget. District lean R+8. Too short a federal tenure for a settled bipartisan index; his prior decade as NC House Speaker was a hard-partisan leadership tenure with episodic cross-aisle infrastructure work. Policy positions are not scored in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
Seated January 2025, after the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, absent from that signatory list, so no Criterion-8 process-subversion attaches, and none is otherwise documented. No documented Criterion-10 enemy-making or incitement pattern. The salient conduct moments are fiduciary, not constitutional: a confirmed STOCK Act disclosure lapse and a documented appearance of office-information trading by the member tasked with financial oversight.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Conventionally partisan public voice without a documented sustained dehumanization or enemy-making pattern, and without a documented high-mark defense of an opponent's standing at personal cost. The record is neither notably inflammatory nor notably restrained, an honest middle.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The center of gravity for this record. As NC House Speaker, Moore accumulated a long trail of resolved or dismissed appearance-concerns: a Siler City chicken-plant DEQ subsidy episode, legislative-office help securing a state job for his then-fiancée, a habit of steering state dollars to his home county criticized by fellow Republicans, campaign-funds-to-self rent payouts, and a quietly settled 2023 affair lawsuit. In Congress, he committed a confirmed STOCK Act disclosure violation (late reporting of ~12 April 2025 trades) and traded Centene/UnitedHealth around the OBBBA Medicaid vote and Intel before a U.S.-Intel partnership announcement, while Vice Chair of the Financial Services oversight subcommittee. His office denied insider trading and no charge has issued; the trades are weighed as serious appearance-concerns, the disclosure lapse as a confirmed breach.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Moore was seated after December 2020 and is absent from the Texas v. Pennsylvania signatory list, so no Criterion-8 process-subversion flag attaches; no documented Criterion-10 incitement pattern exists. The record's weight is fiduciary appearance-concern and one confirmed disclosure violation, not capping conduct. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Tim Moore is a capable, durable institutionalist, twenty-plus years in the NC House, a record-long Speakership, near-perfect federal attendance, real policy command. The standard does not score that capability upward into character. What it scores is conduct against the oath as a trust, and there the record is dragged by a recurring, largely unforced pattern of fiduciary appearance-concerns culminating in a confirmed STOCK Act disclosure violation and the appearance of office-information trading by the very member charged with financial oversight. None of it is a finding or a conviction, and none of it is Severity-class, so the verdict is not damning. But honestly weighed, the pattern holds the composite below the line of affirmative support.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · U.S. House financial disclosures
Tier 2: Fortune, STOCK Act disclosure reporting · NC Newsline / Campaign for Accountability, ethics complaints · Quiver Quantitative, congressional trading record
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Wikipedia · House financial disclosures
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.