Composite 5.52 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Foreclosed by a confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag (the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature), regardless of composite. The personal-character record, the 2017 life-saving conduct, the clean ethics record, the fact-finding committee posture, is real and is credited in the measures and pillars, but it cannot override a documented use of office to defeat a constitutional purpose. No support.
Wenstrup is among the 126 House Republicans who signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief filed December 11, 2020, asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral results of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and reassign their electors. Signing to override another state's certified electors is a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the transfer of power based on certified state results, which is the defining Criterion-8 conduct. It hits M01 and M04 and drives M01 to the floor. His ultimate vote to certify is weighed as partial mitigation but does not undo the signed amicus.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), U.S. Supreme Court docket 22O155 · Wenstrup House office statement on Texas v. Pennsylvania
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 →
- Combat surgeon, 344th Combat Support Hospital, Iraq tour 2005–2006
- Bronze Star Medal and Combat Action Badge
- Medical Policy Advisor to the Chief of the Army Reserve; saw patients at Walter Reed
- Doctor of Podiatric Medicine prior to service in Congress
Service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. The character demonstrated within it, cool-headed, selfless conduct under fire, is scored as conduct where it belongs (the 2017 life-saving response at M08 and Pillar I), 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.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 3 | why?Wenstrup is a signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), which asked the
Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral results of four states and reassign their electors.
That is a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer based on
certified state results, and triggers Criterion 8 (process subversion), driving M01 to the floor. His
own-side Jan-6 floor objection to certification is NOT separately scored here (the constitutional process
working), and his post-Jan-6 statement that he ultimately voted to certify is weighed as partial
mitigation, but the signed amicus is the documented capping conduct. Held at 3, not 2, because the
objection was rooted in stated state-law-administration arguments rather than fraud fabrication.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?As chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic he stated and pursued a nonpartisan
mandate, told Marjorie Taylor Greene he didn't 'have time for that' because he was conducting a
professional review, and the panel produced some bipartisan-consensus findings despite a polarized
environment. His Bipartisan Index scores are middling rather than top-tier. Genuine cross-aisle posture
on the committee, ordinary partisanship elsewhere, upper-middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who don't belong. As COVID Select chair
he repeatedly tried to lower the temperature and steer toward fact-finding. The amicus is scored as
process subversion (M01/M04), not anti-belonging rhetoric. No criterion-10 conduct on record.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?The Criterion-8 amicus signature hits M04 as well as M01: lending the office's name to a suit seeking to
override another state's certified electors is a use of position against the constitutional order rather
than within it. Otherwise no documented weaponization of state power against private rivals. Held at 4 to
reflect the single documented process-subversion act against an otherwise non-abusive record.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Generally measured public rhetoric across a long tenure; no documented sustained incitement or
dehumanizing-language pattern. His public posture after the 2017 shooting and as COVID Select chair leaned
de-escalatory. Upper-middle restraint with no flagged exceptions.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No public House Ethics or Office of Congressional Ethics referral, sanction, or pending matter located.
Financial disclosures filed and publicly available. A solid, unremarkable fiduciary-process record; held
at 6 rather than higher absent affirmative self-accountability anchors of the McCain type.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Wenstrup did not break from his party on
the central institutional test of his tenure, he signed the Texas v. PA amicus rather than calling it
out. His ultimate vote to certify and his stated reasoning are a partial within-process correction, and
his fact-finding posture on COVID Select showed some independence, but there is no documented instance of
paying a real cost to call out his own side. Below middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 8 | why?The discretion test asks what someone does when no one compels it. On June 14, 2017, under live fire, Wenstrup improvised a tourniquet and rendered combat-surgeon aid to Rep. Steve Scalise; Scalise's surgeon
stated the aid was decisive in saving his life. A high-mark instance of selfless, cool-headed conduct
with nothing political to gain in the moment. Not scored as a military badge, scored as documented
conduct.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between private contempt and public civility; off-camera reputation appears consistent
with the measured public posture. No anchor either direction of unusual strength, solid middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Routine constituent-service and district-representation record across six terms with no documented
donor-over-constituent capture or neglect concern. Ordinary, adequate institutional service, middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, foreign-government revenue. No documented STOCK Act referral, self-dealing finding, or office-info trading
against Wenstrup was located. His personal wealth is not penalized as a breach. Absent any documented
office-driven enrichment, scored at a clean middle-high.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?As a subcommittee chair he largely conducted hearings with institutional decorum and a process-oriented
posture, producing a 500-plus-page report. The countervailing institutional drag is the amicus signature,
which is scored at M01/M04; here the regular-order committee conduct holds at a solid middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No documented sustained falsehood pattern, but his 2020-21 election-administration framing advanced
contested claims of irregularity that were used to justify the amicus and objection. Weighed as a real
drag on truthfulness around the central event of his tenure rather than a pervasive habit, honest middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Demonstrated substantive command on health, pandemic-preparedness, and military-medicine policy, a
physician and combat surgeon who chaired a detailed two-year oversight investigation and chaired
classified stockpile briefings. Substance over talking points on his core subject-matter area.
[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 electors ↳ Criterion 8 process subversion, defeating a constitutional purpose with legal-on-its-face power | Ultimately voted to certify; objection framed on state-law-administration grounds rather than fabricated fraud, keeps floor at 3 not 2 |
| M04 | Same amicus signature lent the office's name to overriding another state's certified electors ↳ use of position against the constitutional order | No documented weaponization of state power against private rivals otherwise |
| M07 | Did not break from his own side on the central institutional test of his tenure; no documented costly own-side call-out ↳ active call-out duty unmet | Final vote to certify + fact-finding COVID Select posture show partial independence |
| M13 | Advanced contested election-irregularity framing used to justify the 2020 amicus and objection ↳ truthfulness drag around the central event | No pervasive sustained falsehood pattern across the broader record |
| Pillar I | The amicus is a Trust & Loyalty drag toward the institution's constitutional purpose ↳ institutional loyalty drag | Selfless, life-saving 2017 conduct and combat service demonstrate strong personal Courage/Selfless Service |
| Pillar IV | The process-subversion signature is the asterisk on an otherwise high-character legacy ↳ Integrity/Justice drag | Life-saving conduct, clean ethics record, and fact-finding oversight temper but do not erase 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: Courage, Selfless Service, Steadiness Under Pressure, the 2017 under-fire tourniquet response and combat-surgeon service are strong evidence. Held below the top tier by a real drag toward the constitutional-loyalty opposite: the 2020 amicus placed party objective over the institution's certified-results purpose. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, measured public conduct and a stated fact-finding mission, but limited documented self-correction on the central institutional test of his tenure. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, no documented exploitation of power for private gain and a clean fiduciary record, offset by the process-subversion signature as a misuse of institutional standing. Net middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, genuinely admirable personal courage and clean ethics, with the amicus as the durable asterisk that keeps the legacy pillar at a middle mark rather than higher. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 22/40 |
Total 22/40, Adequate-to-mixed. The Trust & Loyalty pillar holds highest on the strength of the under-fire conduct; the remaining pillars are tempered by the documented process-subversion act.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I'm trying to conduct a professional review and do a report.”
As COVID Select chair, declining to engage a partisan sideshow during the investigation · CNN coverage of the COVID Select committee · CIVIC · cite
“I used my belt as a tourniquet and rendered aid.”
Treating Rep. Steve Scalise under live fire at the Congressional baseball practice shooting · Fox19 / CBS News coverage · PRINCIPLED · cite
“Statement on Texas v. Pennsylvania”
Wenstrup's public defense of joining the amicus brief seeking to invalidate four states' certified electors · Wenstrup House office statement · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Brad Robert Wenstrup (born June 17, 1958). U.S. Representative for Ohio's 2nd congressional district, 2013–2025 (six terms). Doctor of Podiatric Medicine; U.S. Army Reserve officer (Colonel), combat surgeon in Iraq 2005–06 with the 344th Combat Support Hospital, awarded the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge. Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, 118th Congress. Did not seek re-election in 2024; left office January 2025. Subsequently named to the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (an advisory role, not an executive office). In scope as a recently-departed House member.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Six-term House Republican from a center-right Cincinnati-area district. Lugar Center–McCourt Bipartisan Index scores are middling; DW-NOMINATE center-right. Signature role: chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (118th Congress), producing a 500-plus-page final report after a two-year investigation. Long-standing focus on veterans' health, military medicine, and pandemic preparedness. Policy positions are not graded here in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining institutional moment of his tenure is the 2020 post-election period. Wenstrup signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020) urging the Supreme Court to invalidate four states' certified electors, scored as Criterion-8 process subversion. He objected on the House floor on Jan 6, 2021 to certain electoral counts (the constitutional objection process, NOT separately scored), and per his own statement ultimately voted to certify the results, weighed as partial mitigation. The countervailing high-mark moment is non-legislative: the June 2017 under-fire medical response that helped save a colleague's life.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured public rhetoric with no documented sustained incitement or dehumanizing-language pattern. As COVID Select chair he repeatedly sought to de-escalate and keep the proceeding fact-oriented. The drag on his truthfulness record is the contested election-irregularity framing he advanced in 2020–21 to justify the amicus and objection, weighed at M13.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No public House Ethics or Office of Congressional Ethics referral, sanction, or pending matter located. Financial disclosures filed and publicly available; no documented STOCK Act referral, self-dealing finding, or office-information trading. M11 scores only office-attributable enrichment and finds none, personal wealth is not penalized as a breach. A clean fiduciary record.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (process subversion), confirmed, tier capping, the signature on the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of Dec 11, 2020, verified against the 126-Representative signatory list. This drives M01 to the floor (held at 3 given the state-law framing rather than fabricated fraud) 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
Wenstrup presents a genuine tension the standard is built to hold honestly. On the side of character: a combat surgeon who, under live fire in June 2017, kept his head and saved a colleague's life with nothing political to gain; a clean ethics and disclosure record; and a fact-finding posture as COVID Select chair that tried to resist the polarized pull. On the other side is the single act the framework treats as capping, his signature on the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to invalidate four states' certified electors. That is legal-on- its-face power turned against a constitutional purpose, and under Criterion 8 it forecloses support no matter how the rest of the record reads. The personal courage is real and is credited where it belongs; the institutional act is also real and is not waved away. Honest, and mixed.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. Supreme Court docket 22O155 (Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus) · Congress.gov member profile · House Oversight, COVID Select final report
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · CBS / Fox19, 2017 baseball-shooting coverage
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures (Clerk) · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.