Composite 3.9 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Support is foreclosed by a confirmed capping severity flag (process subversion), independent of the composite. At credit 472 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Steube is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief filed Dec. 11, 2020, which asked the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This is legal-on-its-face official power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer after a certified election, which is the defining Criterion 8 capping conduct. It hits M01 (driven to the floor) and M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), Supreme Court docket 22O155
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 →
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?Driven to the capping floor by Criterion 8 (process subversion). Steube is a verified signatory of the
Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec. 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to invalidate certified
electoral slates in four states, legal-on-its-face standing used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the
peaceful transfer following a certified election. He separately announced and cast objections to the
Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral counts on Jan. 6, 2021. The bare floor objection alone would not cap;
the amicus signature does. Oath-fidelity to the constitutional order is the measure, and the documented
conduct is adverse.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?Sustained low cross-aisle work product. The 2023 Lugar–McCourt Bipartisan Index places him well below the
House baseline (negative score, lower third), and GovTrack notes he joins bipartisan bills the least often
in the Florida delegation. This measures the conduct of seeking common ground, not policy or party
position; the record shows little of it.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 4 | why?No documented high-mark defense of an opponent's standing before his own audience, and a generally
combative posture aligned with the election-objection conduct. No specific anti-belonging slur or incident
against a class of persons is documented either, so this sits below midline rather than at a floor, absence of the high mark, not a discrete violation.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?Criterion 8 hits M04 as well as M01. Lending an official signature to litigation seeking to nullify other
states' certified votes is the use of legal-process power to defeat a constitutional outcome, the
abuse-of-power axis. Held at 3 rather than the absolute floor because the conduct was a one-time
collective filing, not a pattern of weaponizing state machinery against named rivals.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?Rhetoric runs partisan and combative, including the public framing of the 2020 result as fraudulent
("clear irregularities... Constitutional violations") which the courts rejected. Below midline for
restraint, but no documented sustained pattern of casting citizens as enemies who do not belong rising to
Criterion 10; partisan heat alone is not scored as enemy-making.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?No public House Ethics adverse finding or sanction against Steube himself is on record, and no documented
self-accountability high mark either. Midline: clean of personal findings, without an affirmative
ownership anchor to lift it.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's own side at cost. No documented instance of Steube
breaking with his party leadership or his own coalition at personal political expense is on record. One
notable instance of process-restraint cuts modestly in his favor (see M12): in early 2026 he paused his
own expulsion measure against a colleague to let the Ethics Committee finish its review. Below midline for
the own-side call-out, lifted off the floor by that restraint.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented test of the discretion standard (declining a personal benefit or preferential treatment
available to him) either way. Midline by absence of evidence.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between private and public conduct, and no anchor of consistency to lift it. Midline by
absence of evidence.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituent-service mechanics (district office work, the annual congressional art competition) are on
record; no documented donor-over-constituent capture or constituent abandonment to anchor a deviation.
Midline.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family-payment scheme,
office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue is on record. Raw wealth and ordinary disclosed
holdings are not penalized. Midline by absence of any office-driven enrichment finding.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?A documented instance of institutional-process respect: pressing an expulsion measure against a colleague
under indictment, he declined to force the floor vote before the House Ethics Committee finished its
review, citing the proper sequence and the two-thirds threshold. Deferring to regular order over a
spectacle vote is decorum-positive conduct. Tempered overall by the Jan. 6 objection posture, but this
specific restraint earns slightly above midline.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 3 | why?Documented advancement of the unsubstantiated "fraud/irregularities" framing of the certified 2020 result
across press and broadcast, claims the courts and certifying officials rejected. This is conduct on the
truthfulness axis, not a policy disagreement. Below midline for repeating a falsified factual claim from
the office.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?Seats on Ways and Means and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence indicate substantive
committee responsibility; no standout record of mastery-over-talking-points nor a documented
substance-failure to move it off midline.
[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 | Signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec. 11, 2020) seeking to invalidate four states' certified electoral slates ↳ Criterion 8 process subversion, capping; oath to the constitutional order | Collective filing alongside 125 other members; legal-on-its-face standing claim |
| M04 | Same amicus signature, official power lent to litigation to defeat a certified electoral outcome ↳ abuse-of-power axis (Criterion 8) | One-time collective filing, not a pattern against named rivals |
| M13 | Repeated the rejected 'fraud/irregularities' framing of the 2020 result in press and on Newsmax ↳ truthfulness, repeating a falsified factual claim from office | Framed as constitutional/legal concern rather than personal fabrication |
| M02 | 2023 Lugar–McCourt Bipartisan Index ~257th, negative score; joins bipartisan bills least in FL delegation ↳ low common-ground-seeking conduct | A measure of work product, not personal misconduct |
| M05 | Combative, partisan public rhetoric including the rejected fraud framing ↳ rhetorical restraint drag | No sustained enemy-making pattern rising to Criterion 10 |
| Pillar I | The amicus signature is the central drag, fidelity to the constitutional order placed below partisan electoral interest ↳ Trust & Loyalty drag (to the oath, not a person) | No self-interest enrichment dimension |
| Pillar IV | Election-subversion conduct is the kind of influence one would not want propagated ↳ Legacy/Justice drag | Process-restraint on the 2026 expulsion measure is a counter-data point |
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?Loyalty to the constitutional order is the dominant attribute tested here, and the Texas v. PA amicus signature is a documented break, partisan electoral interest placed above the oath to the certified outcome. No countervailing high mark of courage against his own side at cost. Held at 3. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Conviction and authenticity are present in a consistent partisan posture, but the truthfulness axis is dragged by repeating the rejected fraud framing, and there is no documented self-correction or ownership anchor. Below midline. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?No documented exploitation of office for enrichment and no abuse of state machinery against named rivals; the central protection failure is collective (the amicus) rather than personal predation. The 2026 process-restraint on the expulsion measure is a genuine, if narrow, stewardship-of-process data point. Midline. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Election-subversion conduct is the kind of influence one would not want a child to inherit, dragging Justice and Love of Truth. The process-restraint instance and the clean personal-ethics record temper but do not lift it above below-midline. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 16/40 |
Total 16/40. The pillars sit low because the capping conduct (Criterion 8) is a fidelity failure to the oath itself, even though the personal-enrichment and abuse-of-rivals axes are clean.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“There are clear irregularities, improprieties and Constitutional violations in these four states that warrant objection to their electoral votes.”
Announcing plans to object to the 2020 electoral count, claims the courts and certifying officials rejected · Steube House press release · CONTESTED · cite
“I'm not going to try to expel her before the Ethics Committee finishes its review.”
Declining to force a floor expulsion vote against an indicted colleague before the Ethics process concluded (paraphrase of reported position) · Florida Politics / Washington Times · PRINCIPLED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
William Gregory ("Greg") Steube. U.S. Representative for Florida's 17th congressional district since January 3, 2019 (current term ends January 3, 2027). Prior service in the Florida House of Representatives and Florida Senate; U.S. Army veteran (JAG / infantry, Iraq-era). Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
2023 Lugar Center–McCourt School Bipartisan Index places Steube in the lower third of the House (rank ~257, score ~-0.672); GovTrack flags him as joining bipartisan bills the least often within the Florida delegation. Committee seats: Ways and Means; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Policy positions and party alignment are NOT scored here, per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy in either direction; the bipartisan index is read only as a conduct signal of common-ground-seeking.
3. Constitutional Moments
The central constitutional-conduct event is adverse: Steube signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec. 11, 2020) seeking to invalidate four states' certified electoral votes, and on Jan. 6, 2021 announced and cast objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral counts. A separate, process-respecting moment cuts the other way: in Feb. 2026 he declined to force a floor expulsion vote against an indicted colleague before the House Ethics Committee completed its review.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Partisan and combative public posture. The documented drag is the repeated framing of the certified 2020 result as fraudulent, "clear irregularities, improprieties and Constitutional violations", claims the courts and certifying officials rejected. No documented sustained pattern of casting citizens or opponents as enemies who do not belong rising to Criterion 10; partisan heat alone is not scored as enemy-making.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment on record: no self-dealing finding, family-payment scheme, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue. No public House Ethics adverse finding or sanction against Steube himself. Raw wealth and ordinary disclosed holdings are not penalized under the framework. The fiduciary axis is clean on the evidence available.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One confirmed Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (process subversion, capping) for signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking to nullify four states' certified electoral slates. This drives M01 to the floor, hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No Criterion 10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
The record is fiduciarily clean, no documented self-enrichment, no abuse of state machinery against named rivals, and one genuine instance of institutional-process restraint (deferring to the Ethics Committee on a 2026 expulsion measure). But the standard is fidelity to the oath, and the defining conduct here is adverse: signing litigation to discard four states' certified electoral votes is Criterion 8 process subversion, a capping flag that drives the constitutional-conduct measures to the floor and forecloses support. The bipartisan-index weakness and the repeated rejected-fraud framing compound it. Honest middles on the axes with no evidence; a hard floor where the oath itself was tested.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court docket 22O155, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Representatives) · Congress.gov member profile · House financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center–McCourt Bipartisan Index (2023 House) · GovTrack report card · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.