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

← Roster

713
Sound
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
28/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 7.12 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.

Clears the 700 support line at credit 713 (Sound band) with no severity flag, Author's Verdict: supported on the documented conduct.

★ Service to Country

No record of U.S. military service for Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen. Her veterans-related work is legislative, Vice Chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and is scored as conduct/portfolio command (M12, M14), not as personal service. Noted here only to record that no service badge applies.

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 7
why?
Non-voting delegate for American Samoa since 2015. No documented conduct undermining constitutional order: she did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (verified, no territorial delegates appear among the 126 voting-member signatories), and as a delegate she did not participate in the Jan 6 certification vote. No process-subversion conduct on record. Held at a solid baseline rather than higher because there is no affirmative, costly stand for the oath against her own side to elevate it. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 8
why?
Consistently strong cross-party cooperation: ranked 28th and 14th most bipartisan Representative in the 114th and 115th Congresses, 19th of 441 in 2021, with positive BPI scores across her tenure. A delegate representing a small territory who works across the aisle for her constituents' interests rather than denying the other side wins. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 7
why?
No documented anti-belonging rhetoric or conduct casting groups or opponents as outsiders. A long public record of democracy-building missions and breast-cancer advocacy points the other direction. Solid, with no high-mark single anchor that would push it higher. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 7
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics. No criterion-class conduct on record. Baseline-clean. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 7
why?
Public rhetoric is constituent-service and policy oriented (Indo-Pacific, veterans, fisheries, American Samoa's interests) without a documented pattern of inflammatory enemy-making. No heated-line incidents surfaced in the record. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 7
why?
No ethics findings, no STOCK Act enforcement, no investigations surfaced. Clean fiduciary appearance over a decade in office; held at baseline rather than higher absent an affirmative accountability anchor. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 6
why?
The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Radewagen publicly breaking with her party leadership on a matter of principle at personal cost. Her strong bipartisanship is cooperative rather than confrontational; absent a documented costly call-out, this sits at a middle baseline, not higher. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 7
why?
No documented instance of using discretion to extract preferential personal treatment. No countervailing high-mark anchor of self-sacrifice on record either; baseline-clean. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 7
why?
No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; the public-facing constituent-service reputation is consistent across the record. No surfaced evidence of a hidden posture. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 7
why?
A documented constituent-service orientation for American Samoa, fisheries, veterans, federal funding access for the territory. Strong alignment to constituent need rather than distant donor interests; the delegate role is structurally close to its constituency. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 8
why?
No office-attributable enrichment on record: no self-dealing, no family-payment scheme, no office-information trades, no foreign-government revenue surfaced. M11 scores ONLY office-driven enrichment, and none is documented. High-clean. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 7
why?
Sustained institutional participation across multiple Congresses, vice chair of the Indo-Pacific Subcommittee and Veterans' Affairs; committee-level work where a delegate's vote does count. Decorous institutional posture without documented spectacle-seeking. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 7
why?
No documented sustained pattern of public falsehood. No election-denial statements or fabricated-claim pattern surfaced in the record. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 7
why?
Demonstrated substantive command of her portfolio, Indo-Pacific policy, territorial natural-resource and fisheries issues, veterans' affairs, areas of direct relevance to American Samoa. Substance over talking points within her lane. [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
M01 No affirmative, costly stand for the oath against her own side; baseline conduct without an elevating constitutional-fidelity anchor
↳ Oath fidelity, absence of high-mark, not a breach
No process-subversion conduct; did not sign Texas v. PA amicus; as a delegate did not participate in the Jan 6 certification vote
M07 No documented instance of publicly calling out her own party leadership on principle at personal cost
↳ Active call-out duty, not met on record
Strong cooperative bipartisanship is on record; absence of a confrontational anchor, not evidence of capitulation
M02 Bipartisan ranking varied across Congresses (top-20 in some, mid-pack in others)
↳ Cross-party cooperation, strong but not uniformly top-tier
Multiple top-quartile and top-20 finishes over a decade

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, Selfless Service, Loyalty to constituents. A decade of consistent constituent-service representation for a small territory with no documented breach of trust. Held at a solid-middle because there is no extraordinary costly-loyalty anchor (no documented stand against her own side) to push it toward the apex.
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, Consistency. Clean integrity record, no ethics findings, no enrichment, no falsehood pattern. Mid-high baseline; no documented self-correction-under-pressure anchor that would lift it further.
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?
7
why?
Attributes: Stewardship, Protection of constituent interest, Accountability. Uses her delegate position to steward American Samoa's fisheries, veterans, and federal-access needs. No drag toward Exploitation; no office-driven enrichment. The ceiling reflects a delegate's structurally limited floor power, not a flaw.
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?
7
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Service, Justice. A durable, scandal-free record of representing an under-resourced territory. Contested moments are essentially absent; the score is a solid-middle because the affirmative, defining high-mark moments that distinguish the strongest records are also absent.
TOTAL: Moderate 28/40

Total 28/40, Solid. An honest middle: a clean, cooperative, scandal-free decade of delegate service without the rare, costly oath-stands or accountability anchors that lift a record into the top tier.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“Working together across the aisle is how we deliver real results for the people of American Samoa.”

Recurring framing of her bipartisan, constituent-service approach (paraphrase of her stated governing posture; see press archive) · House office press archive · CIVIC · cite

“As Vice Chair of Veterans' Affairs, our veterans have earned every benefit they were promised.”

Veterans' Affairs committee work (paraphrase of stated priority; see committee record) · House Veterans' Affairs Committee record · PRINCIPLED · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (born December 29, 1947). Non-voting Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives from American Samoa (at-large) since January 2015, the first Republican to hold the seat and the first woman to represent American Samoa in Congress. Breast-cancer survivor (diagnosed 1993) and awareness advocate. Long history of international democracy-building missions (Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco) since 1992. Currently running for re-election in 2026; term ends January 3, 2027.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index: ranked 28th (114th) and 14th (115th) most bipartisan Representative; 19th of 441 in the 117th Congress; mid-pack in the 118th. Committee assignments: Foreign Affairs (Vice Chair, Indo-Pacific Subcommittee), Natural Resources, and Veterans' Affairs (Vice Chair). NOTE on votes: as a non-voting territorial delegate she does not vote on final House passage on the floor (delegates vote in committee and historically in the Committee of the Whole). Aggregate "missed-vote" statistics are therefore a STRUCTURAL ARTIFACT of delegate status and are NOT scored as conduct here.

3. Constitutional Moments

No process-subversion conduct on record. Verified against the Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 2020) amicus signatory list, she is NOT a signatory; no territorial delegates appear among the 126 voting-member signatories. As a non-voting delegate she did not participate in the January 6, 2021 electoral-count proceedings. No documented election-denial statements.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Constituent-service and policy-oriented public voice, American Samoa's fisheries and federal access, Indo-Pacific security, and veterans' issues. No documented pattern of enemy-making or inflammatory rhetoric surfaced in the record. Cooperative rather than combative public posture.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No ethics findings, no STOCK Act enforcement, no self-dealing, and no office-attributable enrichment surfaced in the record over a decade in office. M11 scores only office-driven enrichment; none is documented. A clean fiduciary record.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Verified non-signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus; no enemy-making/incitement pattern; no process-subversion. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

An honest middle. Radewagen's record is clean and cooperative: a strongly bipartisan decade as American Samoa's delegate, no ethics findings, no enrichment, no election-subversion conduct (verified non-signatory of the Texas v. PA amicus, and structurally outside the Jan 6 vote). What the standard does NOT find is the rare, costly oath-stand, a documented break with her own side on principle at personal cost, that lifts a record into the top tier. The "missed votes" figure is a delegate-status artifact and is not held against her. Solid conduct; short of the affirmative high-marks that would make it exceptional.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (126 Representatives, corrected)

Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House office, financial disclosures · GovTrack · Wikipedia

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

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: