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

← Roster

457
Failing
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
14/40
Unfit
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 3.54 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

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

Foreclosed by the Criterion-10 capping flag (sustained enemy-making), independent of any composite. Beyond the cap, the record carries substantiated DoD IG misconduct (subordinate mistreatment, prescription/alcohol discretion), bottom-tier cross-aisle engagement, a closed-but-real campaign-funds appearance-concern, and a truthfulness drag. No support.

⚑ Severity flag, the third axis, independent of the composite
Criterion 10, Sustained enemy-making / incitement · Capping flag, forecloses support

Documented multi-year pattern of casting opponents and classes of citizens as enemies who do not belong: asserting named Democratic leaders are "directly responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk" (attributing a killing to opponents as a class) and calling for the mass institutionalization of transgender people. This is not single-instance heat or policy disagreement; it is sustained enemy-making aimed at opponents and a citizen group. Capping flag forecloses author support.

Evidence: Texas Politics, Jackson links radicalization to left-wing rhetoric (Charlie Kirk murder claim) · PinkNews, Jackson calls for mass institutionalisation of trans people

A capping flag forecloses an Author's Verdict of "supported" regardless of the composite; a terminal flag suspends the number entirely. Conduct is weighed on documented evidence, applied symmetrically. How flags work →

★ Service to Country
U.S. Navy · Rear Admiral (lower half) · 1995–2019

Service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. Conduct demonstrated within that service, including the DoD Inspector General's substantiated findings on his handling of subordinates and of prescription/alcohol discretion, is scored as conduct where it belongs (M03, M08, M09), not as a badge that moves the composite.

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 4
why?
Sworn in January 3, 2021, was NOT a member when the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus was filed, so the crit-8 amicus cross-check does NOT attach to him. On January 6, 2021 he voted to sustain objections to the Arizona, Pennsylvania and Nevada electoral votes. Under the framework a bare Jan-6 floor objection alone is NOT process-subversion (crit-8), the objection mechanism is itself a constitutional process. What weighs the score down is the surrounding conduct: amplifying the "stop the steal" framing and the "American Patriots have your BACK Mr. President!" post hours before the Capitol was breached, plus later calling the investigating committee "illegitimate." Constitutional-fidelity record is thin and the rhetoric eroded confidence in a lawful count without rising to a capping process-subversion finding. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 3
why?
Lugar Center Bipartisan Index ranks him near the bottom of the House (304th, score approx -0.87), a well-below-average pattern of cross-aisle bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship. This measures the conduct of working with the other side, not ideology or party. Persistent low cross-aisle engagement; scored low, not floored, because low bipartisan output is a habit, not an oath breach. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 3
why?
The DoD Inspector General SUBSTANTIATED that as White House physician he failed to treat subordinates with dignity and respect, screaming over trivial matters, an explosive temper, a hostile work environment. This is an IG finding, not a bare allegation, and it speaks directly to how he treats people of equal worth in a position of power. Predates his House service but is character-relevant conduct. Drags the score well below midline. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 4
why?
No documented weaponization of state office against rivals reaching a finding. The crit-8 process-subversion flag does not attach (not seated for the Dec 2020 amicus; bare Jan-6 objection is not crit-8). Held slightly below midline by the rhetoric casting the legitimate January 6 select committee as "illegitimate," which corrodes acceptance of lawful oversight without being an affirmative abuse of his own power. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 2
why?
A documented multi-year pattern of enemy-making rhetoric, not isolated heat. He stated Democratic leaders are "directly responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk" (Sept 2025), attributing a killing to political opponents as a class, and called for the mass institutionalization of transgender people, framing a class of citizens as not belonging. Add the 2023 White Deer Rodeo bodycam showing a profanity-laced tirade at a DPS trooper. This is the conduct driving the crit-10 capping flag. Floored region. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 4
why?
The OCE referred and the House Ethics Committee reviewed allegations that his campaign paid roughly $12,000 for a private Amarillo Club membership, potential personal use of campaign funds. Per the evidentiary rule this is a weighed appearance-concern, NOT a finding: the Committee closed the matter on Dec 30, 2024 with no further action. The appearance-of-impropriety drag is real but resolved-without-sanction, so it is weighed, not treated as a violation. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 3
why?
The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of breaking with his own coalition or leadership when it would cost him; the record runs the other way, reliable alignment with the dominant faction and amplification of its grievances. Scored low for absence of demonstrated independent accountability, not for partisanship itself. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 3
why?
The discretion test asks how he uses unsupervised authority. The IG substantiated improper handling of prescription authority as White House physician, dispensing medications (Ambien, Provigil) without proper records, earning the "Candyman" label, and being unreachable due to alcohol while on duty. Substantiated abuse of professional discretion; weighs the score low. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 3
why?
Evidence of a gap between public posture and private/off-camera conduct: the IG documented bullying and drunkenness on duty out of public view, and the 2023 rodeo bodycam captured an off-script profanity-laced confrontation. The off-camera reputation diverges from the public one. Scored low. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 5
why?
No documented donor-capture pattern displacing constituent representation in a deep-red district that broadly aligns with his posture. Held at midline: ordinary district representation, no standout constituent-fidelity evidence and no documented sell-out either. Honest middle. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 5
why?
M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The one office-attributable item is the campaign-funds-for-club-membership appearance-concern, reviewed and CLOSED with no further action, so it is weighed as appearance, not a finding. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue established. Held at midline reflecting the unresolved appearance only. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 3
why?
Institutional decorum is weak. The 2023 bodycam tirade at a state trooper, the "American Patriots have your BACK Mr. President!" post hours before the Capitol breach, and labeling a lawful congressional committee "illegitimate" all favor spectacle and confrontation over the dignity of office. Scored low. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 3
why?
Pattern of unsupported factual claims advanced for political effect: amplification of the 2020 stolen-election framing rejected by courts, and the assertion that named opponents are "directly responsible" for a murder. These are factual assertions of causation/fraud not grounded in adjudicated fact. Truthfulness drag; scored low. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 5
why?
Seats on substantive committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence) and a medical/military background give him genuine domain footing in defense and veterans matters. Held at midline: real subject footing offset by a public record weighted toward grievance messaging over demonstrated legislative substance. [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
M05 Sept 2025: stated Democratic leaders are 'directly responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk'; Sept 2025: called for mass institutionalization of transgender people; 2023 rodeo bodycam profanity tirade at a DPS trooper
↳ Persons of Equal Worth / sustained enemy-making (crit-10)
Rhetoric, not state action; no charges from the rodeo incident, weighed as documented pattern, not conviction
M03 DoD IG substantiated failure to treat subordinates with dignity, explosive temper, hostile work environment as White House physician
↳ Persons of Equal Worth, substantiated IG finding
Predates House service; character-relevant conduct, not a House-era act
M08 DoD IG substantiated improper prescription practices ('Candyman') and being unreachable due to alcohol while on duty
↳ Discretion test, abuse of unsupervised professional authority
Substantiated by IG; predates House service
M13 Amplified court-rejected stolen-election framing and asserted opponents are 'directly responsible' for a murder
↳ Love of Truth, unsupported causation/fraud claims
Political rhetoric; no adjudicated factual basis
M02 Lugar Bipartisan Index 304th in House (approx -0.87), well below average
↳ cross-aisle engagement (conduct, not ideology)
Measures legislative behavior, not party, habit not breach
M06 OCE referral over ~$12K campaign-funded Amarillo Club membership; House Ethics reviewed
↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety
Committee closed Dec 30 2024 with NO further action, weighed as appearance, not a finding
M12 2023 trooper confrontation, Jan-6-eve 'patriots have your back' post, 'illegitimate' label on a lawful committee
↳ institutional decorum / dignity of office
None substantial

Partisan gamesmanship, identified & set aside

A fixed standard has to refuse the partisan narrative as much as it refuses the partisan defense. These are the loud public accusations the standard did not count, debunked, overstated, unadjudicated, or simply policy rather than conduct, named openly so the score rests only on what is actually established. The same discipline is applied to every record, on every side.

AccusationVerdictWhy it's set aside
He got drunk and wrecked a government vehicle on an official trip, and demanded that rum and other alcohol be stocked in his lodging room with staff fearing retribution if they refused. debunked The 2021 DoD Inspector General report (DODIG-2021-057), the same investigation that substantiated his subordinate-mistreatment and on-duty alcohol findings, examined these specific allegations and found NO evidence to support them. The wrecked-government-vehicle claim and the rum-stocking/retribution claim were both expressly unsubstantiated. Because the very report critics cite for his real misconduct cleared these particular claims, a fixed conduct standard cannot count them. (Sources: NBC/Fox/Military.com coverage of DODIG-2021-057; media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/03/2002592287 the report itself.)
Jackson was a January 6 'insurrectionist' who coordinated with the Oath Keepers, who texted that he had to be protected because he held 'critical data.' dismissed allegation The factual core is real (Oath Keepers members did exchange messages about protecting him on Jan 6, and he is listed on the activist 'Insurrection Index'), but the inference of coordination is unproven. There is no evidence Jackson had any contact with the Oath Keepers; he denied knowing them, was never charged, and contemporaneous accounts have him staying to help defend the House floor as one of the last members evacuated. Being talked about by people one does not know is not conduct. This is an unadjudicated allegation, not an established act. (Sources: CBS News and CNN, Apr 19 2022, on the Oath Keepers texts; insurrectionindex.org listing.)
By voting on January 6, 2021 to sustain objections to Arizona, Pennsylvania and Nevada electoral votes, Jackson tried to overturn the 2020 election. policy not conduct The framework's own analysis treats a bare floor objection under the Electoral Count Act as the constitutional process working, not its subversion, critics brand every objector an election-overturner, which collapses a lawful procedural vote into alleged misconduct. Jackson was not seated for the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (sworn in Jan 3, 2021), so the process-subversion (crit-8) cross-check does not attach. Note this set-aside covers ONLY the bare floor vote; his surrounding stolen-election amplification and 'patriots have your back' eve-of-breach post remain scored as institutional-fidelity drag. (Source: congressional record; politician file M01/constitutional_moments analysis.)

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?
4
why?
Attributes: Courage, Selfless Service, Steadiness. Military service and willingness to deploy weigh positive, but the IG-substantiated collapse of steadiness under pressure (drunkenness on duty, explosive temper) drags toward the opposites. Below midline.
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?
3
why?
Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Little documented self-correction, he disputed rather than owned the IG findings and the rodeo confrontation. Drag toward the opposites of Self-Reflection and Temperance.
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?
4
why?
Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Stewardship, Accountability. No documented use of office to protect the vulnerable; the campaign-funds appearance-concern (closed) and the substantiated subordinate-mistreatment pull toward Exploitation/lack of Stewardship. Slightly below midline.
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?
3
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The enemy-making rhetoric (opponents 'responsible for murder'; institutionalize trans people) and court-rejected election claims are sustained drags toward Favoritism and away from Love of Truth. Low.
TOTAL: Unfit 14/40

Total 14/40, Weak. The pillars sit below the conduct floor because the character record (IG findings) and the sustained enemy-making rhetoric compound rather than offset one another, and there is little documented self-correction to temper them.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“American Patriots have your BACK Mr. President!”

Social-media post hours before the Capitol was breached · CNN / Republican Accountability profile · CONTESTED · cite

“Every single one of those people ... are directly responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk.”

Blaming Democratic leaders for a political killing · Texas Politics · CONTESTED · cite

“He does not know nor has he ever spoken to the people in question.”

Spokesperson response to Oath Keepers Jan-6 protection texts naming Jackson · CBS News · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Ronny Lynn Jackson (born May 4, 1967). U.S. Representative for Texas's 13th Congressional District since January 3, 2021 (R). Retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral (lower half); emergency physician who served as White House physician under Presidents Obama and Trump and as Physician to the President. Native of Levelland, Texas. Committees: Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Agriculture.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Deep-red TX-13 (Cook PVI approx R+24). Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index ranks him near the bottom of the House (304th in the 118th-Congress release, approx -0.87), indicating well-below-average cross-aisle sponsorship. Active sponsor on border-security and export-control measures (e.g., 2026 Strategic Export Controls and Border Security Enhancement Act). Policy content is NOT scored here in either direction; only the conduct of legislating (bipartisan engagement, truthfulness) is.

3. Constitutional Moments

Sworn in January 3, 2021, NOT a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (seated after it was filed), so the crit-8 amicus cross-check does not attach. On January 6, 2021 he voted to sustain objections to the Arizona, Pennsylvania and Nevada electoral votes; under the framework a bare floor objection is the constitutional process working and is NOT crit-8 process-subversion. The surrounding conduct, amplifying the stolen-election framing, the "patriots have your back" post on the eve of the breach, and calling the lawful Jan-6 select committee "illegitimate", is weighed as institutional-fidelity drag, not as a capping flag.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

The dominant character signal in this record. A documented multi-year pattern of casting opponents and classes of citizens as enemies who do not belong: asserting Democratic leaders are "directly responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk" (Sept 2025), and calling for the mass institutionalization of transgender people (Sept 2025). These are not isolated heated lines or policy disagreement, they attribute violence to opponents as a class and frame a group of citizens as needing removal from public life. This sustained enemy-making is the basis for the crit-10 capping flag. The 2023 rodeo bodycam tirade adds a temperament data point.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No established office-driven enrichment. The single office-attributable concern is the OCE-referred allegation that his campaign paid roughly $12,000 for a private Amarillo Club membership (potential personal use of campaign funds). The House Ethics Committee reviewed and CLOSED the matter on Dec 30, 2024 with no further action, so under the evidentiary rule it is weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. No documented family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

One capping Severity flag: Criterion 10 (sustained enemy-making / incitement), confirmed on a documented multi-year pattern, attributing a political murder to opponents as a class and calling for the institutionalization of transgender people, alongside eve-of-breach "patriots have your back" amplification. Criterion 8 (process subversion) is NOT triggered: he was not seated for the Dec 2020 amicus, and a bare Jan-6 floor objection is the constitutional process, not its subversion. The DoD IG substantiated misconduct (subordinate mistreatment, prescription/alcohol discretion) and the closed campaign-funds appearance-concern are weighed in the measures, not as additional capping flags. Capping forecloses author support.

7. What The Framework Says

This record is held down by character, not by policy or party. The DoD Inspector General substantiated mistreatment of subordinates and abuse of prescription/alcohol discretion during his service, counted as conduct, honestly, even though it predates Congress. In office, the defining pattern is sustained enemy-making rhetoric that casts opponents as murderers and a class of citizens as not belonging, which triggers the Criterion-10 capping flag and forecloses support regardless of the composite. The election-eve and "illegitimate-committee" rhetoric is weighed as institutional drag but, correctly, NOT as crit-8, he was not seated for the amicus and a floor objection is the process working. The closed campaign-funds matter is an appearance-concern, not a finding. A weak record under a fixed standard.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile / record · House Committee on Ethics, statement re Rep. Jackson · Office of Congressional Conduct, OCE referral re Rep. Jackson

Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Texas Tribune, DoD report / rodeo bodycam coverage · NPR, DoD IG report coverage

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

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

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: