Composite 4.64 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 511, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
- U.S. Navy SEAL, retired as a Senior Chief Petty Officer after roughly 26 years of service
- Multiple combat deployments during a career spanning the post-Cold War and post-9/11 eras
Service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. Conduct and character in office are scored on the measures, where they belong. The badge contextualizes the record; it does not move the composite, and in this record the in-office conduct, not the service, is what the standard weighs.
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 | 5 | why?No process-subversion conduct attributable to him as an officeholder: he was not seated until January 2023, so he could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is absent from that 126-member signatory list, and no fake-elector or clock-running scheme is documented. His January 2021 presence on restricted Capitol grounds during the Stop the Steal event was as a private citizen/defeated candidate, weighed under character/appearance rather than as an oath-violating official act. Held at the middle, not higher, because that pre-office appearance and his subsequent reluctance to fully account for it leave a genuine institutional-fidelity question even though no capping conduct is established. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 7 | why?A genuine strength: independent analysis and the Lugar Bipartisan Index place him at the top of the Wisconsin delegation for cross-party legislating (~69% of his measures bipartisan, well ahead of the next Wisconsin member). Representing a true toss-up district, the incentive is real, but the cooperative legislative output is documented and counts as conduct that places the work above denying the other side a win. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 3 | why?A documented, repeated pattern of treating others as beneath dignity rather than as persons of equal worth: a profanity-laced rant calling teenage Senate pages 'pieces of s---' who were 'defiling' the Rotunda (July 2023), with a sustained refusal to apologize; profane abuse of administration briefers and a Jewish colleague during a classified Israel briefing (Oct 2023); a profane public confrontation with Rep. Pocan (2025). Not one heated line, a pattern. Low, with the bipartisan-work counterweight keeping it off the floor. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 5 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals, no abuse-of-office investigation, subpoena, or coercive act aimed at opponents is on record. The drag here is the character question carried over from the January 2021 restricted-grounds appearance, not an established in-office abuse. Middle, on absence of evidence either direction. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 3 | why?Rhetorical conduct shows a sustained-temper problem, not isolated heat: shouting 'lies' during the 2024 State of the Union, repeated profane eruptions in briefings and the Rotunda, and a public motorcycle-revving shouting match with a colleague. The content is largely temper and insult rather than a programmatic campaign to cast opponents as enemies who do not belong, so it is scored as a serious restraint failure rather than a capping incitement flag. Low. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?Accountability is the weakest area. After the bipartisan rebuke for berating teenage pages he refused to apologize, defending the outburst instead. The January 2021 use of roughly $4,000 in leftover campaign funds for the Jan-6-period D.C. trip drew an ethics complaint (an appearance-concern, not an adjudicated finding). The contrast with leaders who own their worst moments is stark; the pattern is non-acknowledgment. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The higher bar, calling out one's OWN side at cost, is largely unmet on the record. His confrontational energy is aimed outward (administration briefers, Democratic colleagues, the press) rather than at his own coalition. His district-driven bipartisan legislating is cooperation, not the costly intra-party truth-telling this measure rewards. Below middle. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented instance of choosing private advantage over duty in a discretionary trust test, and no established self-dealing. The lone finance question is the 2021 campaign-fund travel (pre-office, appearance-only). Middle on absence of either a clear pass or a documented breach. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 4 | why?Rather than a hidden private/public gap, the pattern is the inverse: the off-script, in-person conduct (Rotunda, classified briefing, Capitol-grounds clash) is harsher than the polished public persona, and the private behavior had to be reported by witnesses. The undisciplined private-setting conduct is itself the concern. Below middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Represents a competitive swing district and has a documented record of seeking measures with cross-party appeal responsive to that constituency. No evidence of donor-capture overriding constituent service. Upper-middle on responsiveness, tempered by the conduct that distracts from the representational job. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue tied to his seat. Raw wealth is not penalized. The single asterisk is the 2021 leftover-campaign-fund travel, pre-office and an appearance-concern, not office-driven enrichment, kept here as a minor drag rather than a breach. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Institutional decorum is a documented, recurring failure that drew a bipartisan rebuke from Senate leadership of both parties. Cursing teenage pages in the Rotunda, heckling the State of the Union, profane disruption of a classified national-security briefing, and a public confrontation with a colleague form a sustained pattern of treating the institution like a 'frat house' rather than honoring it. Low. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truthfulness carries a documented drag: his repeated claim that he never went onto Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021 is contradicted by a photograph placing him on a wall inside a restricted area (a recreation confirmed he would have had to cross police barricades). His 'lies' heckle at the 2024 State of the Union also reflects a contested-truth posture. Below middle for the documented inconsistency, not a sweeping falsehood pattern. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive command in his lane is credible: Navy veteran serving on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs, with a bipartisan-rated legislative output on agriculture and veterans issues relevant to a rural district. Upper-middle, real policy work, undercut at times by spectacle that substitutes for 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.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M03 | Profane rant at teenage Senate pages (July 2023) calling them 'pieces of s---' who were 'defiling' the Rotunda; profane abuse of briefers and a Jewish colleague during a classified Israel briefing (Oct 2023); profane public clash with Rep. Pocan (2025) ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, repeated dignity failures | Genuine cross-party legislative cooperation keeps the interpersonal score off the floor |
| M05 | Shouted 'lies' during the 2024 State of the Union; repeated profane eruptions in briefings and public settings ↳ Rhetorical restraint, sustained temper | Content is temper/insult, not a programmatic enemy-making campaign, scored as restraint failure, not a capping incitement flag |
| M06 | Refused to apologize after a bipartisan rebuke for berating teenage pages; 2021 ethics complaint over ~$4,000 in campaign funds spent on Jan-6-period travel ↳ Accountability, non-acknowledgment | Jan-6 finance item is an unadjudicated appearance-concern, not a finding |
| M12 | Bipartisan Senate-leadership rebuke for the Rotunda outburst; heckling the State of the Union; disrupting a classified briefing ↳ Institutional decorum, recurring breach | None documented, he defended rather than corrected the conduct |
| M13 | Claimed he never went onto Capitol grounds Jan 6, 2021, contradicted by a photo placing him in a restricted area behind police barricades ↳ Truthfulness, documented inconsistency | Single documented inconsistency, not a sweeping falsehood pattern |
| M11 | ~$4,000 in leftover campaign funds used for Jan-6-period D.C. travel (pre-office) ↳ Fiduciary appearance-concern | Pre-office and appearance-only, NOT office-driven enrichment; minor drag, not a breach |
| Pillar II | The sustained outburst pattern is a break from any claimed statesmanship (Consistency) and an impulse-control problem (Temperance), with refusal to self-correct (Self-Reflection) ↳ Consistency/Temperance/Self-Reflection drag | Authenticity, the persona is not a polished fake; what you see is what is reported |
| Pillar IV | The decorum pattern and the Jan-6 inconsistency are influence one would not want a child to propagate (Justice/Love of Truth); the refusal to apologize dents Integrity ↳ Integrity/Justice drag | Bipartisan legislative service is a real positive on the ledger |
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
| 6 | why?Attributes: Courage and Steadiness, a real combat-veteran backbone and a willingness to take politically risky cross-party votes in a swing district. Dragged down by Steadiness-Under-Pressure failures (the repeated public eruptions) that read as the opposite of composure. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Authenticity present, but Self-Reflection and Teachability are the weak axes, the defining episodes (page rant, briefing outburst) were met with defense rather than ownership, and a documented Jan-6-grounds inconsistency dents Integrity. Held low by the refusal to self-correct. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Stewardship of a competitive district via bipartisan legislating is real Protection of constituent interest; no documented Exploitation of office. Tempered by Courage-in-Conflict mis-aimed, energy spent on spectacle and confrontation rather than constructive use of power. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Justice and Love of Truth are the contested axes, the decorum pattern and the Jan-6 inconsistency are influence one would not want propagated. Moral Courage exists in the swing-district votes but is offset by a legacy currently defined by outbursts more than by statesmanship. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 19/40 |
Total 19/40, Adequate-to-weak. The pillars hold below the bipartisan legislative record because the character axes (temper, accountability, truthfulness) carry documented, repeated drags that the cooperative legislating does not erase.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“69% of all of the legislation I have done over the last two years has been bipartisan according to the Lugar Center's bipartisan index.”
2024 campaign statement on his cross-party legislative record · PBS Wisconsin candidate statement · CIVIC · cite
“The Capitol should never be treated like a frat house common room.”
Defending, rather than apologizing for, his profane rant at teenage Senate pages in the Rotunda · ABC News · CONTESTED · cite
“Wake the f--- up you little s---. What the f--- are you all doing? Get the f--- out of here.”
Per a transcript of his remarks to teenage Senate pages taking traditional late-night photos in the Capitol Rotunda · CBS 58 / NPR reporting · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Derrick Van Orden (born September 1969). U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 3rd congressional district since January 3, 2023; Republican. Retired U.S. Navy SEAL (Senior Chief Petty Officer). Lost the 2020 WI-3 race, then won the open seat in 2022. Serves on the House Agriculture, Armed Services, and Veterans' Affairs committees. Running for re-election in 2026 in a district rated competitive.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center Bipartisan Index places him at the top of the Wisconsin delegation for cross-party legislating (~69% of his measures bipartisan by his own citation of the index, ahead of the next Wisconsin member). Committee work concentrated on agriculture, defense, and veterans issues relevant to a rural swing district. Policy positions are NOT scored here in either direction; the bipartisan-process output is recorded as cooperative conduct, the documented decorum failures as conduct of the opposite kind.
3. Constitutional Moments
Not seated until January 2023; absent from the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory list and from any fake-elector activity. The one constitutional-character episode is pre-office: on January 6, 2021, as a defeated candidate and private citizen, he attended the Stop the Steal event and was photographed on a wall inside a restricted Capitol-grounds area; he later claimed he never entered the grounds, a claim a photograph contradicts. Weighed as a character/appearance concern, not as an oath-violating official act.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
The defining rhetorical signature in office is a sustained-temper problem rather than a programmatic enemy-making campaign: a profane rant at teenage Senate pages (July 2023), profane disruption of a classified Israel briefing including an f-bomb at a Jewish colleague (October 2023), shouting 'lies' during the 2024 State of the Union, and a public profane clash with a colleague (2025). The content is insult and temper, not a structured incitement to cast opponents as enemies who do not belong, so it is scored as a serious restraint and decorum failure, not as a capping incitement flag.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-driven enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue tied to his seat. The single finance asterisk is pre-office: roughly $4,000 in leftover 2020 campaign funds spent on Jan-6-period D.C. travel, which drew an ethics complaint, an unadjudicated appearance-concern, not a finding, and not office-driven enrichment.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
The conduct is reviewed against Criterion 8 (process subversion) and Criterion 10 (sustained enemy-making/incitement). Criterion 8 does NOT attach: he was seated after December 2020, is absent from the Texas v. Pennsylvania signatory list, and his Jan-6 presence was a private-citizen appearance, not an oath-violating official act. Criterion 10 is considered because of the repeated public eruptions, but the documented pattern is temper, insult, and decorum failure rather than a structured campaign casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong or directing confrontation, so it is weighed heavily on the restraint and decorum measures rather than invoked as a capping flag. No capping flag set. The record's real weakness is character-and-conduct quality (temper, accountability, truthfulness), which lowers the composite on its own without a severity cap.
7. What The Framework Says
A split record. The genuine strength is a documented, top-of-delegation bipartisan legislative output in a true swing district, real cooperative conduct the standard credits. Against it sits a sustained, documented pattern of decorum and temper failures that drew a bipartisan Senate-leadership rebuke: cursing teenage pages and refusing to apologize, disrupting a classified national-security briefing, heckling the State of the Union, and a public profane clash with a colleague, plus a Jan-6-grounds claim a photograph contradicts. No capping severity flag attaches, because the conduct is undisciplined temper rather than structured process subversion or incitement. But the accountability, restraint, and decorum measures are documented weaknesses, and they pull the conduct composite into the lower-middle band on their own merits.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: NPR, Senate-page rebuke · NBC News, Israel-briefing outburst · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · GovTrack profile · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.