Composite 6.25 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 647, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service on record. Career in public office: Mayor of Glen Cove (1994-2001), Nassau County Executive (2002-2009), U.S. Representative NY-3 (2017-2023; returned via Feb 2024 special election). Service to country is honored as context, never scored; conduct in office is what the measures grade.
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 | 6 | why?No documented process-subversion conduct. Suozzi was a sitting member in December 2020 and did NOT
sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican-only filing of 126 House members), verified
against the signatory list; no crit-8 exposure. No fake-elector, election-overturn, or run-out-the-clock
conduct on record. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because the affirmative oath-defense record
is ordinary rather than distinguished, solid adherence to constitutional process without a signature
stand at personal cost.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 8 | why?Among the strongest cross-aisle records in the cohort. Top ~15% on the Lugar Center / McCourt
Bipartisan Index; co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus (prior vice-chair across the
115th-117th Congresses) and a negotiator of the 2018 "Break the Gridlock" rules package. VoteView
places him to the right of ~90% of his caucus, a documented pattern of placing problem-solving over
reflexive party-line behavior. Scored on conduct (willingness to work across the aisle), not policy.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented anti-belonging pattern toward citizens or opponents. His public posture, including
facing hostile constituent protests over the DHS/ICE vote in person rather than avoiding them, treats critics as participants, not enemies. Upper-middle; no high-mark dignity-defense anchor, but
no documented denigration of any group's standing.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics. No criterion-class conduct.
Held at middle on the absence of an affirmative power-constraining stand rather than any abuse.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetoric is measured and issue-focused; his 2026 ICE statement criticized agency conduct ("overstepped
its bounds," "escalatory and inappropriate") while still affirming law enforcement, calibrated rather
than incendiary. No documented sustained inflammatory or enemy-making rhetorical pattern. Middle-to-upper:
restrained tone, no standout civic-rhetoric anchor.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?A genuine, repeated fiduciary appearance-concern. The Office of Congressional Ethics unanimously
found "substantial reason to believe" Suozzi failed to properly disclose hundreds of stock trades;
a watchdog (Campaign Legal Center) flagged ~300 late-disclosed transactions (NPR 2021). The House
Ethics Committee in July 2022 concluded there "was not clear evidence" of a "knowing or willful"
STOCK Act violation and declined to penalize him, a dismissal, weighed as an appearance-concern, not
a finding. The pattern recurred: 2024 Treasury-bill purchases and 2022 trades disclosed months/years
late, prompting a renewed FACT complaint (Oct 2025). Repeated lateness across years is the drag;
absence of a willful-violation finding and no self-dealing keep it from the floor.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Suozzi's record cuts in two directions:
he routinely breaks from his caucus (VoteView right of ~90% of Democrats), a documented willingness to
cross his own side. He also publicly said he "failed" on his own DHS-funding vote after the Pretti
shooting, owning a decision rather than deflecting. That is self-accountability, though it followed
intense constituent pressure rather than preceding it. Middle-upper: real independence and ownership, short of a costly call-out delivered against the grain when nothing compelled it.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented abuse of discretion or preferential self-treatment. The disclosure lapses are scored
under fiduciary measures, not here. Middle on the absence of a documented discretion-under-pressure
test resolved in the public's favor.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; his centrist, deal-making posture is consistent on
and off camera, and he engaged hostile audiences in person. Middle, consistent but without a
standout authenticity anchor.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 7 | why?Represents a Trump-won swing district and visibly weighs constituent preference against party line, the center-lane voting record and willingness to take heat from his own base for centrist positions
reflect representation oriented to the district rather than to donors or caucus leadership. Upper-middle;
scored on representational conduct, not on whether any given policy is correct.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 4 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The concern here is an
active-trading-while-in-office pattern with chronic late disclosure: hundreds of personal stock
transactions disclosed past STOCK Act deadlines, plus a 2025-reported $50,000 stock sale that used a
disclosure loophole. There is no finding of office-information trading, self-dealing, or family
payments, the House Ethics Committee found no willful violation and imposed no penalty. The drag is
the persistent appearance that individual-stock trading and lax disclosure create for a sitting
member; weighed as appearance-concern, not a proven enrichment breach, which keeps it off the floor.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Institutional-respect conduct is a relative strength: leadership of a cross-party caucus dedicated to
regular order and the "Break the Gridlock" reform package honors the institution over the spectacle.
Upper-middle, tempered by the disclosure lapses which reflect carelessness toward an institutional
rule.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. His 2026 acknowledgment that he "failed" on a vote is a
candor data point against self-serving spin. Middle-upper on the absence of a documented honesty
concern.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Demonstrated substantive command in his policy lane, Ways and Means member with sustained focus on
tax (SALT) and fiscal policy, and a track record of detailed bipartisan negotiation rather than
slogan-level engagement. Upper-middle for substance over talking points.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M06 | OCE found 'substantial reason to believe' Suozzi failed to properly disclose hundreds of stock trades; ~300 late-disclosed transactions (CLC/NPR 2021); repeated late disclosures in 2022 and 2024 ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety, chronic STOCK Act lateness | House Ethics found no 'knowing or willful' violation and imposed no penalty (July 2022); no self-dealing finding, weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding |
| M11 | Active individual-stock trading while in office with persistent late disclosure; 2025-reported $50,000 stock sale used a disclosure loophole ↳ Office-context appearance concern around trading/disclosure | No finding of office-information trading, self-dealing, or family payments; not raw-wealth-penalized |
| M07 | His DHS-funding-vote self-criticism ('I failed') followed intense constituent pressure rather than preceding it ↳ Active call-out duty met partially, not pre-emptively | Genuine ownership of a decision plus a documented record of breaking from his own caucus |
| Pillar III | Disclosure lapses (Stewardship) recur across multiple years despite a prior Ethics referral ↳ Stewardship drag | Strong Reliability/representation in a swing district; no exploitation finding |
| Pillar IV | The repeated disclosure appearance-concern is an asterisk on an otherwise institution-respecting legacy (Integrity) ↳ Integrity drag | Bipartisan institutional work and public ownership of a mistake temper the drag |
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
| 7 | why?Attributes: Independence, Steadiness, Loyalty-to-institution-over-faction. The documented willingness to break from his own caucus and face hostile constituents in person evidences Courage and Steadiness; no meaningful drag toward Collapse or pure Self-Interest. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Self-Reflection, Teachability, publicly owned a vote he called a failure. Held at 6 by a Consistency/Stewardship drag: the recurring late-disclosure pattern across multiple years shows carelessness toward a rule he had already been warned about. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, cross-party Protection of the legislative process. No drag toward Exploitation, the disclosure concern is appearance, not a proven abuse; the Problem Solvers leadership is real institutional protection. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moderation, Love of compromise. A durable centrist-institutionalist legacy, asterisked by the disclosure appearance-concern that recurs and a record of independence rather than a singular oath-defining stand. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 26/40 |
Total 26/40, Adequate-to-Sound. The bipartisan-institutional pillars hold up the record; the fiduciary disclosure pattern is the consistent drag across the integrity and stewardship pillars.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I failed to view the DHS funding vote as a referendum on the illegal and immoral conduct of ICE in Minneapolis.”
Public statement reversing course on his DHS/ICE funding vote after the killing of Alex Pretti · Axios · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“There is no question that ICE has overstepped its bounds. We have seen masked agents aggressively and at times violently confront people, including American citizens and individuals who are lawfully present in this country.”
Statement on ICE enforcement conduct while continuing to support law enforcement and border security · Rep. Suozzi official account · PRINCIPLED · cite
“Co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.”
Cross-party caucus leadership; consistent top-quartile Bipartisan Index placement · Problem Solvers Caucus · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Thomas Robert Suozzi (born August 31, 1962). U.S. Representative for New York's 3rd district (2017-2023; returned February 2024 via the special election to replace George Santos). Previously Mayor of Glen Cove (1994-2001) and Nassau County Executive (2002-2009); 2022 Democratic gubernatorial primary candidate. Member, House Ways and Means Committee; co-chair, bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Center-lane Democrat; VoteView places him to the right of roughly 90% of his caucus. Top ~15% on the Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index. Problem Solvers Caucus co-chair (prior vice-chair 115th-117th), helped negotiate the 2018 "Break the Gridlock" rules. Ways and Means focus on tax policy (notably SALT-cap relief). The 2026 DHS/ICE funding vote and subsequent reversal are recorded as institutional/accountability conduct, NOT scored on policy merits per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
No process-subversion conduct on record. A sitting member in December 2020, Suozzi did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican-only filing), verified against the signatory list. His most-cited institutional moments are cross-party: Problem Solvers Caucus leadership and regular-order reform advocacy.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Measured and issue-focused. His 2026 ICE statement criticized agency conduct as having "overstepped its bounds" and being "escalatory and inappropriate" while still affirming support for law enforcement, a calibrated rather than incendiary register. No documented sustained inflammatory or enemy-making pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The central conduct drag. The Office of Congressional Ethics unanimously referred Suozzi to the House Ethics Committee, finding "substantial reason to believe" he failed to properly disclose hundreds of personal stock trades; a watchdog flagged ~300 late-disclosed transactions (NPR 2021). The House Ethics Committee (July 2022) found no "knowing or willful" STOCK Act violation and declined to penalize him, a dismissal weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. The pattern recurred (2022 trades and 2024 Treasury-bill purchases disclosed late; a 2025-reported $50,000 stock sale using a disclosure loophole), prompting a renewed FACT complaint in October 2025. No self-dealing, office-information trading, or family-payment finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Suozzi did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and has no fake-elector, election-overturn, or sustained enemy-making conduct on record. The recurring STOCK Act disclosure appearance-concern is a fiduciary drag scored within the measures, not a criterion-class severity flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Suozzi is an honest middle. The strength is real and documented: one of the most bipartisan records in the cohort, sustained cross-party institutional work, swing-district representation that takes heat from his own base, and public ownership of a vote he called a failure. The persistent drag is also real: a multi-year pattern of late financial disclosures that drew an OCE referral and a renewed 2025 ethics complaint, weighed honestly as an appearance-concern rather than a proven breach since the Ethics Committee found no willful violation. The bipartisan-institutional record carries him to an adequate-to-sound standing; the disclosure pattern is what keeps it from rising higher.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Ethics Committee / OCE Report and Findings (July 2022)
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Axios, Suozzi DHS/ICE vote reversal · Fortune, Suozzi disclosure loophole
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House Ethics OCE Report (2022) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.