Composite 3.57 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Foreclosed by two capping severity flags regardless of composite. As Missouri AG, Schmitt LED the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Dec 2020) to overturn a certified presidential election (Criterion 8), and in 2025 delivered the NatCon "doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us" address casting a class of people as not belonging (Criterion 10). Substantive legal capability and solid constituent service are recorded honestly, but the constitutional-order and belonging breaches dominate. Does not clear the bar.
As Missouri Attorney General, Schmitt led the 17-state coalition that filed the amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 9, 2020), an original action asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of four states won by Biden. The Court rejected it for lack of standing on Dec 11, 2020. This is legal-on-its-face power used to attempt to defeat the constitutional purpose of a certified election, the core of Criterion-8 process subversion. It drives M01 to the floor and hits M04.
Evidence: Missouri Independent, SCOTUS rejects Schmitt-backed suit to overturn election · KMMO, Missouri AG joins Texas Supreme Court voting case
In his September 2025 National Conservatism Conference plenary, Schmitt declared "America doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us," defining true Americans as the descendants of European Christian settlers and casting non-white immigrants as outside the national "us." Drawing an explicit line between who belongs and who is erased is a documented pattern of casting a class of people as not belonging, the core of Criterion-10, judged on a fixed standard regardless of direction.
Evidence: The Fulcrum, When Schmitt says 'America belongs to us,' who is 'us'? · Slate, Schmitt gives a white nationalist speech at NatCon
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 →
No military service on record. Schmitt's pre-Senate career was in law and Missouri state government (State Senate 2009–2017, State Treasurer 2017–2019, Attorney General 2019–2023). Service-record is note-only and does not affect the score.
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 | 2 | why?Floored by a confirmed Criterion-8 process-subversion flag. As Missouri Attorney General, Schmitt
LED the 17-state coalition that filed the amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 9, 2020), an
original-jurisdiction action asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of
four states Biden won. The Court rejected it for lack of standing on Dec 11. Using legal-on-its-face
AG power to attempt to overturn a certified presidential election is a direct strike at the
constitutional purpose the oath protects. Held at the floor of the crit-8 band (2–3), not below, because
the conduct was litigation rather than the more aggravated fake-electors/clock-running conduct.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?Scored on the conduct disposition to place the institution over denying the other side a win, NOT on
partisan-alignment raw score. The Bipartisan Index placement (97th of 98) is treated as a weak signal,
not a finding, because index position largely tracks policy/ideology. The conduct record shows little
affirmative cross-aisle institution-building and a spectacle-forward posture criticized even by some
Missouri Republicans. Lower-middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 2 | why?Reflects a confirmed Criterion-10 anti-belonging concern. In his Sept 2025 NatCon address Schmitt
declared "America doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us," defining true Americans as "the sons and
daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe's shores" and casting non-white
immigrants as outside the national "us." Explicitly drawing a line between who belongs and who is
erased is a documented violation of Persons-of-Equal-Worth, judged on the same fixed standard either
direction. Scored at the low band.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?The Criterion-8 flag hits M04 as well as M01: state legal power directed at defeating a certified
election outcome is the weaponization-of-power concern this measure tracks. Compounded by a documented
pattern of politically-framed AG litigation. No criminal finding exists, so this is weighed as
documented conduct plus appearance, not as an adjudicated abuse, which keeps it at the low band rather
than the floor.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 3 | why?Rhetoric measure: a documented pattern of enemy-framing and exclusionary language, the "blood and
soil"-adjacent NatCon framing flagged by multiple outlets, plus sustained characterization of partisan
opponents as a danger. This is the rhetorical surface of the M03 concern, scored as a pattern (not a
single heated line, and not policy heat). Low band.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?One appearance-concern: as RAGA vice chair, Schmitt's affiliated 501(c)(4) (Rule of Law Defense Fund)
financed/organized the Jan 6 march and a "stop the steal" robocall. Schmitt denied knowledge; emails
show the group repeatedly contacted his office. Uncharged and unresolved, weighed as an
appearance-concern, never a finding, per the evidentiary rule. Held at the middle: a real concern, no adjudicated breach.
[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 Schmitt
breaking from his party or its leadership on a matter of principle at personal cost is on record;
the public posture is consistently aligned. Absence of the costly call-out, not a punished act, low band.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?Discretion test, using delegated power for the public good rather than self/faction when no one is
watching. Limited documented record either direction in the Senate tenure to date; no clear
self-serving discretion abuse and no standout selfless discretion. Neutral middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?Private-versus-public consistency. No documented gap between an off-camera reputation and the
on-camera persona; the combative public posture appears to match the private one. No contradicting
evidence either way, neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Constituent service / representation conduct. Documented delivery on Missouri-specific provisions
(FY26 NDAA wins, local legislation such as the Hubble post-office naming, ag-research reauthorization).
Ordinary-to-solid representational throughput; upper-middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, foreign-gov revenue), NOT raw wealth. Estimated net worth ~$1.0M (329th in Congress) is modest, and
no documented office-driven enrichment, self-dealing, or disclosed-trade scandal is on record. No
penalty applied for raw wealth. Upper-middle, neutral on the enrichment axis.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional decorum / office-versus-spectacle. A documented spectacle-forward style, described as
"stunts" by some fellow Republicans, and a confrontational floor/media posture weigh against honoring
the institution over the show. Not the floor (he observes regular Senate process), but below middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 3 | why?Truthfulness / no-sustained-falsehood standard. Schmitt advanced the litigation and campaign messaging
that lent legitimacy to unsubstantiated claims the 2020 election was stolen, the Texas v. PA suit
itself rested on claims already rejected for lack of evidence. A documented pattern of amplifying a
falsehood-adjacent narrative, weighed as conduct. Low band.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substance over talking points. A capable lawyer (former Missouri AG) who chairs the Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution and serves as JEC vice chair, demonstrating real substantive command
in those areas. Held at upper-middle because the public profile leans heavily on combative framing
alongside the substantive work. Not scored on policy positions.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | Led the 17-state AG amicus in Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 9 2020) seeking to invalidate four states' certified electoral votes; rejected Dec 11 for lack of standing ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, overturning a certified election | Litigation rather than fake-electors/clock-running; held at the crit-8 floor, not below |
| M03 | NatCon 2025: 'America doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us,' defining true Americans as descendants of European Christian settlers and casting non-white immigrants as outside the national 'us' ↳ Criterion-10 anti-belonging, casting a class of people as not belonging | none weighed sufficient to lift the band |
| M04 | State AG legal power directed at defeating a certified election; pattern of politically-framed litigation ↳ weaponization-of-power concern (crit-8 spillover) | No criminal finding, weighed as documented conduct plus appearance, not adjudicated abuse |
| M13 | Advanced litigation and campaign messaging lending legitimacy to unsubstantiated 2020 'stolen election' claims ↳ amplification of a falsehood-adjacent narrative | Avoided the most explicit 'rigged' phrasing personally; still a documented pattern |
| M06 | As RAGA vice chair, affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund financed/organized the Jan 6 march and 'stop the steal' robocall; office repeatedly contacted by the group ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | Schmitt denied knowledge; uncharged and unresolved, weighed as appearance, not finding |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking from his own side on principle at personal cost ↳ absence of the active call-out duty | absence, not a punished act |
| M12 | Spectacle-forward 'stunts' posture noted by fellow Republicans; confrontational media/floor style ↳ office-versus-spectacle drag | Observes regular Senate process, not floored |
| Pillar I | Texas v. PA leadership is a direct loyalty-to-the-constitutional-order breach (Trust & Loyalty opposite: faction over oath) ↳ Trust/Loyalty drag | none |
| Pillar IV | Election-overturning litigation + exclusionary NatCon rhetoric form an influence one would not want propagated (Justice/Love of Truth) ↳ Legacy/Virtue drag | Substantive legal command tempers but does not offset |
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.
| Accusation | Verdict | Why it's set aside |
|---|---|---|
| Schmitt is a 'white supremacist' / 'white nationalist' who used his September 2025 National Conservatism Conference speech ('What Is an American') to openly promote white supremacism. | overstated | The speech is real and documented, and his rhetoric celebrating European Christian settlers ('sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims') is a fair subject for criticism. But the 'white supremacist/supremacism' label is a contested editorial interpretation advanced by opinion outlets (Slate, Missouri Independent op-ed, Baptist News Global, MSNBC, People's World), not an established factual finding. Schmitt did not advocate racial superiority or exclusion in explicit terms; the headline characterization inflates nativist/heritage rhetoric into a formal ideology charge. The speech belongs in conduct review on its actual words; the 'white supremacist' framing itself is set aside as overstated. |
| By signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking to overturn the 2020 election, Schmitt committed sanctionable attorney misconduct and acted as an 'insurrection attorney' fueling the 'Big Lie.' | dismissed allegation | The 65 Project filed coordinated bar ethics complaints against the Republican AGs who joined the brief (Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas). The parallel Kansas disciplinary office dismissed the complaint against then-AG Schmidt, and no bar discipline was imposed on Schmitt over the brief. The misconduct/insurrection-attorney framing was rejected by the disciplinary process; the underlying decision to join the brief is a separate matter for conduct review, but the ethics-violation accusation itself is a dismissed allegation. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Tony Messenger; Kansas Reflector, 2022.) |
| Schmitt engaged in campaign-finance lawbreaking and 'pay-to-play' corruption, illegally coordinating his state and federal committees, funding campaign events with taxpayer money, and accepting contributions barred by his own ethics policy. | unproven legal conclusion | An FEC complaint (Common Cause / a citizen complainant, 2022) alleged improper state-to-federal committee coordination, and a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story noted his office never ran the internal conflict-of-interest audits its policy described. No FEC finding of violation, no charges, and no adjudicated 'pay-to-play' determination surfaced. These remain unproven allegations and an unadjudicated legal conclusion, not established conduct. (FEC records; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2019-2022.) |
| Schmitt abused his office by filing dozens of 'politically motivated' lawsuits, suing school districts over mask mandates, St. Louis County over COVID restrictions, and the Biden administration over oil/gas, student debt, and content moderation (Missouri v. Biden). | policy not conduct | These are litigation and enforcement choices made in his official capacity as Missouri Attorney General, an elected legal office with broad discretion over what suits to bring. Critics call them politically motivated lawfare, but disagreement with which cases an AG prosecutes is policy/ideological disagreement, not personal misconduct. Missouri v. Biden even prevailed at the district and Fifth Circuit levels before SCOTUS reversed on standing (Murthy v. Missouri), confirming the claims were not frivolous as a legal matter. Set aside as policy, not conduct. |
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
| 3 | why?Attributes weighed: Loyalty, Selfless Service, Steadiness, Courage. The dominant evidence is a drag toward the opposite, leading the Texas v. PA effort placed faction loyalty above loyalty to the constitutional order and the oath. Little affirmative evidence of selfless service at personal cost offsets it. Low. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Schmitt is authentic and consistent to his stated convictions (no hidden persona), which keeps this off the floor. But minimal documented self-reflection or course-correction on the election-overturning or exclusionary-rhetoric record. Low-middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Stewardship, Accountability. Uses power assertively but the signal record (election litigation, AG posture) is power directed against a constitutional outcome rather than to protect it; no documented call-out of his own side. Low. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The defining moments measured, Texas v. PA and the NatCon 'belongs to us' framing, cut against Justice and Love of Truth. Substantive legal capability tempers but does not lift the pillar. Low. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 13/40 |
Total 13/40, Failing band on the pillars, consistent with two capping severity flags. The pillars are held off the absolute floor by genuine authenticity-to-conviction and real substantive legal command, but the constitutional-order and belonging breaches dominate.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“America doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us. We can no longer apologize for who we are.”
National Conservatism Conference plenary, 'What Is an American' · The Fulcrum / coverage of NatCon 5 · CONTESTED · cite
“Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led a coalition of 17 states in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant Texas leave to file.”
Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus filing · Missouri Independent · CONTESTED · cite
“Senator Schmitt applauds Senate passage of the FY26 NDAA, securing major wins for Missouri.”
Constituent-service record · Senator Schmitt press office · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Eric Stephen Schmitt (born June 20, 1975). Junior U.S. Senator from Missouri since January 3, 2023 (term ends January 3, 2029). Republican. Previously Missouri Attorney General (2019–2023), Missouri State Treasurer (2017–2019), and Missouri State Senator (2009–2017). Chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and serves as vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee. Attorney by training.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
First-term senator. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index placed him near the bottom (97th of 98) in the 118th Congress first session, recorded here as a partisan-alignment signal, NOT scored as conduct. Sponsored Missouri-focused measures (FY26 NDAA provisions, Agricultural and Food Policy Research Centers Reauthorization, a post-office naming for Edwin Hubble). As Missouri AG he was prolific in politically-framed litigation. Policy positions are not graded in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional-conduct moment is pre-Senate: as Missouri Attorney General, Schmitt LED the 17-state coalition amicus in Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 9, 2020), asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The Court rejected the action for lack of standing on Dec 11, 2020. This is a confirmed Criterion-8 process-subversion flag, legal-on-its-face power used to attempt to defeat a certified presidential election. Separately, as RAGA vice chair, an affiliated 501(c)(4) helped organize the Jan 6 march; Schmitt denied knowledge (weighed as appearance only).
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
A documented pattern of exclusionary and enemy-framing rhetoric. The September 2025 NatCon address, "America doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us," defining true Americans as descendants of European Christian settlers, was widely characterized as casting non-white immigrants as outside the national community, drawing "blood and soil" comparisons. Paired with sustained characterization of partisan opponents as a danger, this supports a Criterion-10 concern, judged on a fixed standard either direction.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Estimated net worth ~$1.0M (329th in Congress, Jan 2026), modest, and raw wealth is not penalized. No documented office-driven enrichment, self-dealing, family-payment, or office-information-trade scandal on record. The one fiduciary appearance-concern is the RAGA / Rule of Law Defense Fund connection to the Jan 6 march and robocall (denied knowledge, uncharged), weighed as appearance, not a finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
Two capping severity flags. Criterion 8 (process subversion): leading the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Dec 2020) to overturn a certified presidential election, confirmed, hits M01 (floored to 2) and M04. Criterion 10 (sustained anti-belonging): the NatCon 2025 "doesn't belong to them, it belongs to us" framing casting a class of people as not belonging, confirmed. Either flag alone forecloses author_verdict.support; both are present. The RAGA robocall is a weighed appearance-concern, not a flag.
7. What The Framework Says
Schmitt is a substantively capable lawyer and an effective constituent-service senator, and the standard records those honestly. But two capping conduct flags dominate the record: he LED the Texas v. Pennsylvania effort to overturn a certified presidential election as Missouri AG, and he delivered a 2025 address defining who America "belongs to" in exclusionary terms that cast a class of people as not belonging. These are conduct-and-character breaches against the oath, scored on a fixed standard with no partisan curve. Either flag forecloses support; both are present. Failing band.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Senate financial disclosures (eFD)
Tier 2: Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · Missouri Independent
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Senate financial disclosures (eFD) · GovTrack profile · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.