Composite 4.08 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Failing band at credit 480, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service record. Ogles served as a volunteer reserve deputy with the Williamson County Sheriff's Office; reporting questioned the scope of duties he later claimed from that role. Civilian public service: executive director of Americans for Prosperity Tennessee (2013-2018) and Mayor of Maury County, Tennessee (2019-2022) before election to the U.S. House.
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 | 5 | why?No documented process-subversion conduct: Ogles was seated January 2023, so he could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus nor objected at the January 6, 2021 certification, both predate his service. No criterion-8 capping applies. Held at the middle rather than higher because his oath-fidelity record is otherwise thin and overshadowed by the campaign-finance integrity cloud, but no affirmative subversion of a constitutional process is on record. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Low cross-aisle legislating, among the most ideologically isolated House freshmen by sponsorship/cosponsorship behavior. Scored as CONDUCT (willingness to build common-good coalitions and place institution over scoring points), NOT as ideology or party. The number reflects a documented pattern of minimal bipartisan bridge-building, not the substance of his positions. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 3 | why?A serious anti-belonging instance: on June 2, 2026 Ogles posted that 'Homosexuality has no place in America,' casting a class of citizens as not belonging in the country, later deleted after rebuke from members of his own party (Cruz, Lawler, Santos). Treated as a documented anti-belonging instance, not yet a sustained capping-level pattern, but it sits well below the line. Compounded by the resume-fabrication record, which manufactured a false personal narrative. Low-middle. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 5 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics; no criterion-class conduct under Criterion 8. Middle, neither an affirmative abuse nor an affirmative constraint of state power against itself on record. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 3 | why?The 'Homosexuality has no place in America' post is documented enemy/exclusion rhetoric toward a category of Americans, one heated, since-deleted instance rather than the sustained directed-incitement pattern required for criterion-10 capping, but a real and severe drag on rhetorical conduct. Held low; the deletion and intra-party pushback are noted, not erasing. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?The Office of Congressional Ethics found 'substantial reason to believe' Ogles misrepresented required information on financial disclosures and that his committee may have accepted excessive contributions reported as personal loans. He filed 11 amended reports admitting a claimed $320,000 loan was actually $20,000. Per the evidentiary rule this is a weighed appearance-concern (referred, not adjudicated; a parallel DOJ criminal inquiry appears to have ended May 2026 without charges), but a substantial, self-acknowledged accuracy failure on his own filings is a real fiduciary-of-public-trust drag, not waved away. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?Little evidence of the higher active-duty standard, calling out one's OWN side at personal cost. The record shows the inverse posture (it was fellow Republicans calling HIM out in June 2026). Below middle; no documented instance of costly internal accountability. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented discretion-test moment, positive or negative, no instance of declining a personal advantage for the public good, but also no documented abuse of discretionary power. Middle by absence of evidence either direction. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 4 | why?A documented gap between the curated public persona (economist, tax/healthcare expert, trained police officer, sex-crimes investigator) and the verifiable record, the central concern of the consistency-of-presentation measure. The fabricated self-presentation is the relevant conduct drag; held below middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Active on district-salient issues; no documented donor-capture-vs-constituent breach on record. The campaign-finance concern bears on his own filings rather than on selling out constituents. Middle, ordinary representation, neither standout fidelity nor documented betrayal. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 4 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The relevant concern is the excessive-contribution finding, a line of credit reportedly guaranteed by his in-laws, treated by OCE as a possibly unlawful in-kind benefit to his campaign. Weighed as an appearance-concern (referred, not adjudicated). Not classic office-info self-dealing, but a financial-rules concern tied to obtaining/holding office, so a real but bounded drag. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Mixed institutional decorum. Missed roughly 4.9% of roll-call votes (well above the ~2.1% median), a mild diligence drag, and the June 2026 episode shows a spectacle-over-institution impulse, partly mitigated by deleting the post. Middle; ordinary floor conduct with documented lapses, not a sustained decorum breach. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 3 | why?The strongest documented drag. A pattern of false statements: claiming to be an economist, a 'nationally recognized expert' in tax and health policy, a trained police officer, and an international sex-crimes investigator, contradicted by transcripts and employment records, plus a self-acknowledged false $320,000 loan claim later amended to $20,000. This is a documented-falsehood pattern across both personal narrative and official filings, the core of the truthfulness measure. Low. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?Active legislative output on immigration and fiscal themes; substance is ordinary issue-advocacy without a documented record of deep subject-matter command or, conversely, of empty talking-point posturing rising to a measurable drag. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| M13 | Documented 2023 resume fabrications (economist, tax/health expert, trained police officer, sex-crimes investigator) contradicted by transcripts/employment records, plus self-acknowledged false $320,000 campaign-loan claim amended to $20,000 ↳ Truthfulness, documented-falsehood pattern | Apologized for the degree misstatement; amended the filings himself |
| M03 | June 2, 2026 post 'Homosexuality has no place in America', anti-belonging toward a class of citizens ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, anti-belonging instance | Single since-deleted post, not an adjudicated sustained pattern; drew same-party rebuke |
| M06 | OCE found 'substantial reason to believe' he misrepresented financial-disclosure information and accepted excessive contributions reported as loans ↳ Fiduciary of public trust, appearance-of-impropriety on own filings | Referred not adjudicated; parallel DOJ inquiry appears closed May 2026 without charges; he filed corrective amendments |
| M05 | Exclusionary 'no place in America' rhetoric toward LGBTQ Americans ↳ Rhetorical conduct, enemy/exclusion framing | One heated instance, deleted; below the criterion-10 sustained-pattern threshold |
| M02 | Minimal cross-aisle legislating; among the most isolated House freshmen by sponsorship behavior ↳ Common-good coalition-building (conduct, not ideology) | - |
| M11 | Excessive-contribution finding tied to an in-law-guaranteed line of credit benefiting his campaign ↳ Office-attainment financial-rules concern | Appearance-concern, referred not adjudicated |
| M12 | ~4.9% missed roll-call votes vs ~2.1% median; spectacle-over-institution episode June 2026 ↳ Diligence/decorum drag | Deleted the offending post |
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: the oath-to-Constitution loyalty is intact (no process-subversion conduct on record, predating Jan 2023), but Steadiness and Selfless Service are dragged by the self-promotion pattern and the financial-filing cloud. Below middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 3 | why?Attributes: Authenticity and Self-Reflection carry the heaviest drag, a documented pattern of embellished credentials and a false loan figure later amended. The corrective amendments and degree apology show partial Teachability, keeping it off the floor. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: no documented Exploitation of office against rivals (no criterion-8 conduct), so this pillar holds near middle; but no affirmative protective use of power to constrain abuse is on record either. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?Attributes: Integrity and Love of Truth are the central drags, the falsehood pattern and the exclusionary 'no place in America' rhetoric are influences one would not want propagated. Held low. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 15/40 |
Total 15/40, Failing-to-Adequate band. The pillars sit low because the truthfulness and integrity drags are documented and central, not peripheral, while no extraordinary character anchor offsets them.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Homosexuality has no place in America.”
Social-media post during Pride Month, later deleted after rebuke from fellow Republicans (Cruz, Lawler, Santos) · The Hill · CONTESTED · cite
“I take responsibility... I amended the reports.”
Responding to the campaign-finance discrepancy after filing 11 amended reports correcting a claimed $320,000 loan to $20,000 · NewsChannel 5 Nashville · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“I apologize for the misstatement.”
Acknowledging he did not hold the economics/international-relations degree he had referenced · Washington Post · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Andrew Stuart Ogles (born 1971, Nashville). U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 5th congressional district since January 3, 2023 (118th-119th Congress); running for re-election in 2026. B.S., Middle Tennessee State University (2007). Executive director, Americans for Prosperity Tennessee (2013-2018); Mayor of Maury County, Tennessee (2019-2022). Member of the House Freedom Caucus.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Among the most ideologically right House freshmen of his cohort by DW-NOMINATE and sponsorship behavior; low Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan-Index cross-aisle activity. Active sponsor on immigration and fiscal legislation. Missed roughly 4.9% of roll-call votes Jan 2023-May 2026 (median ~2.1%). Ideology and policy substance are NOT scored here, only the conduct dimensions of coalition-building and diligence.
3. Constitutional Moments
No criterion-8 process-subversion conduct is on record: Ogles took office in January 2023, after the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and the January 6, 2021 certification, and therefore did not and could not sign or object on either. The defining conduct concerns of his tenure are integrity-of-self- presentation and campaign-finance accuracy rather than any documented attack on a constitutional process.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
The dominant documented rhetorical drag is the June 2, 2026 post that "Homosexuality has no place in America," casting a class of Americans as not belonging, deleted after public rebuke from fellow Republicans including Ted Cruz and Mike Lawler. Treated as a severe single anti-belonging instance rather than the sustained directed-incitement pattern that would trigger criterion-10 capping. The deletion and intra-party criticism are noted; the instance is weighed, not erased.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The Office of Congressional Ethics (Jan 2025) found "substantial reason to believe" Ogles misrepresented required financial-disclosure information and that his campaign accepted excessive contributions reported as personal loans. He filed 11 amended reports admitting a claimed $320,000 loan was actually $20,000, with a line of credit reportedly guaranteed by his in-laws. A parallel DOJ criminal inquiry appears to have ended in May 2026 without charges (DOJ returned his phone). Per the evidentiary rule these are weighed appearance-concerns, referred and uncharged, not findings, but the self-acknowledged inaccuracy on his own filings is a genuine fiduciary drag.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No criterion-8 (process-subversion) conduct: Ogles was seated in January 2023, after the December 2020 amicus and the January 6, 2021 certification, and is not on the Texas v. Pennsylvania signatory list. The June 2, 2026 "no place in America" post is a serious anti-belonging instance but a single since-deleted statement, not the sustained, directed pattern criterion-10 requires for a capping flag. It is recorded as a heavy measure-level drag (M03/M05) rather than a structured severity flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Ogles's record is dragged down by conduct, not by ideology. The documented pattern of embellished credentials, the self-acknowledged false campaign-loan figure, the OCE finding of "substantial reason to believe" he misrepresented disclosures, and the exclusionary "no place in America" rhetoric together depress the truthfulness, integrity, and equal-worth measures. None of it rises to a criterion-8 capping flag, he was seated after the 2020-21 events and signed no amicus, and the June 2026 post, though severe, is a single deleted instance rather than a sustained incitement pattern. Honest middle-to-low: an officeholder whose central conduct concerns are about candor and self-dealing appearance rather than abuse of state power.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Office of Congressional Ethics, Report & Findings (Jan 2025) · Congress.gov member profile
Tier 2: Washington Post, resume reporting (Mar 2023) · The Hill, June 2026 Pride-month episode · NewsChannel 5 Nashville, campaign-finance investigation
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · OCE Report & Findings (Jan 2025) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.