Composite 4.05 / 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 479 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Documented participation in the 2020-21 effort to discredit and overturn a certified presidential election: votes against certifying both Arizona and Pennsylvania on Jan 6 2021, and a Nov 6 2020 text to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows (released by the House Jan 6 Committee) proposing a coordinated press operation to amplify both 'vetted' and expressly 'unvetted alleged voting irregularities.' Using legal-on-its-face power to defeat the constitutional purpose of the count is process subversion. Held at capping rather than terminal: he condemned the Capitol violence, did not organize fake electors, and did not personally pressure state officials to alter tallies, so the 'election-theft by force' terminal bar is not met. A human should adjudicate the capping/terminal boundary.
Evidence: RiverheadLOCAL, Zeldin votes against certifying results in two states · East Hampton Star, Zeldin text shows effort on election claims
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 →
- Commissioned officer, U.S. Army; later Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps
- Assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division legal office, Fort Bragg (2005)
- Deployed to Iraq in 2006 (Operation Iraqi Freedom) providing legal counsel to commanders
- Transitioned to Army Reserve 2007; retired as Lieutenant Colonel April 30 2025
Military service to country is honored here as context, not as a score. Character demonstrated within service can inform conduct measures, but the badge itself does not move the composite. The conduct scored below is his EXECUTIVE conduct as EPA Administrator and his pre-office conduct that travels with the person (the 2020-21 election record), not his record as a JAG officer.
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?The central executive measure, and Zeldin's heaviest drag. Beyond a single procedural objection, he voted
against certifying BOTH Arizona and Pennsylvania on Jan 6 2021, and a Nov 6 2020 text he sent to White House
chief of staff Mark Meadows (obtained by the Jan 6 Committee) proposed a coordinated press operation pushing
both "vetted" AND expressly "unvetted alleged voting irregularities" to discredit a certified result. That is
affirmative participation in an effort to defeat the constitutional purpose of the count, process subversion, not mere dissent. Weighed in mitigation: he condemned the Capitol violence, did not organize fake electors or
personally pressure state officials to alter tallies, and the objection vote was lawful-on-its-face. The
mitigations keep this out of the terminal band but cannot lift a documented role in the overturn effort to
the middle. Scored as conduct, never as policy. (Contested EPA grant terminations later ruled unlawful under
the APA are NOT counted here, losing administrative-law cases on policy rollbacks is not defiance of a
binding order absent refusal to comply.)
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?As Administrator the posture has been combative rather than institution-preserving: punishing internal critics
and routing political adversaries to DOJ rather than building durable, cross-administration capacity. Below
the midline for an institution-over-faction measure, though not at the floor, agency direction itself is
lawful and some engagement (state visits, congressional testimony) is normal-order.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of dehumanizing a class of persons ('vermin'/'poisoning the blood'-type rhetoric). His
sharpest language targets named political opponents and 'the Green New Scam' as policy framing, not citizens
as a group unworthy of belonging. Honest middle: no anti-belonging finding, no affirmative high-credit moment.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 2 | why?Two documented uses of agency power against critics and rivals. First, after roughly 600 employees signed a
'Declaration of Dissent,' EPA suspended ~140 and fired ~15, AFTER the agency's own Ethics Office director
found the letter was protected First Amendment activity that did not trigger the Hatch Act, and after an
assistant general counsel warned the action carried 'significant legal risk' as 'likely protected speech.'
Disciplining speech your own ethics lawyers cleared is the textbook weaponization concern. Second, Zeldin
publicly announced criminal referrals to DOJ/FBI singling out named Democratic-aligned grantees (a nonprofit
tied to Stacey Abrams), framing political adversaries as targets. The referrals are not yet adjudicated and
are weighed as appearance-concern, but the dissent-firings are a completed adverse action against critics.
Low.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Heated partisan framing of policy opponents exists but does not rise to a documented incitement or
anti-belonging pattern against a protected class or the public. Middle, the rhetoric is combative-political, not dehumanizing.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?Fiduciary duty to faithful execution is strained by the grant-review record: a federal court reviewing
thousands of EPA-produced pages found 'not one document showed any individualized review,' undercutting the
stewardship claim that terminations followed careful individual scrutiny. No office-attributable enrichment
(that is M11). Below midline for the faithful-execution dimension.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows the opposite during the
defining test: rather than break with the 2020 overturn effort, he advanced it via the Meadows text and the
certification votes. As Administrator he has been a consistent defender of administration priorities with no
documented instance of dissenting from his own side at personal cost. Low.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?The discretion test asks whether discretionary power was used with restraint. Overriding his own ethics
office to discipline protected speech, and publicizing criminal referrals against named opponents, show
discretion exercised toward punishment rather than restraint. Below midline.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?One notable private/public tension: the private Nov 6 2020 Meadows text candidly proposed amplifying
'unvetted' irregularity claims, while his public posture framed objections as principled concern over
'rogue election officials.' Not a sustained two-faced pattern on the available record; held at the middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 4 | why?Duty to the whole public (conduct dimension, not policy): closing all ten regional environmental-justice
offices and the adversarial treatment of career staff and grantees read as serving a faction over the broad
public the office serves. Scored as conduct/posture toward the whole, not as the merits of any deregulatory
agenda (which is policy and not graded). Below midline.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?No documented office-attributable enrichment, no emoluments, family-payment, or self-dealing findings tied
to the EPA post. Pre-office wealth is not penalized per the contamination rule. Slightly above midline
because the affirmative side (no enrichment) is clean even as other measures carry weight.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Decorum is mixed: he maintains a generally professional public bearing and testifies before Congress, but
reports describe a heated meltdown when caught in a contradiction at a hearing, and the rhetoric of
'Green New Scam' and public adversary-naming cuts against institutional decorum. Net middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 3 | why?Truthfulness carries a court-grade finding, not mere allegation. Zeldin testified under oath to the Senate
EPW Committee that he personally reviewed every grant and his deputy individually reviewed 'every single
grant'; a federal court reviewing the EPA's own production found 'not one document showed any individualized
review,' and the deputy's sworn declaration covered a review of programs, not individual grants. The math
(781 grants in ~2h45m of staff meetings is ~13 seconds each) compounds the documented gap between the sworn
claim and the record. A documented falsehood under oath weighs heavily. Low.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substance/competence at the operational level is real: he is an attorney (JAG officer) and former four-term
Congressman who has executed a large, fast-moving agency agenda and testified at length on the record. The
competence is not in question even where the conduct around it is; held modestly above midline and kept from
higher by the credibility findings that bear on how that capacity was used.
[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 | Voted against certifying both AZ and PA on Jan 6 2021; Nov 6 2020 text to Meadows proposed amplifying 'unvetted alleged voting irregularities' to discredit a certified election ↳ Duty to Constitution / process subversion | Condemned the Capitol violence; did not organize fake electors or pressure state officials to alter counts; objection vote lawful-on-its-face |
| M04 | Suspended ~140 and fired ~15 dissent-letter signers after EPA's own Ethics Office found the letter was protected speech and counsel warned of 'significant legal risk'; publicized DOJ criminal referrals naming Democratic-aligned grantees ↳ Weaponization of agency power against critics and rivals | Criminal referrals not yet adjudicated, weighed as appearance-concern; agency direction itself is lawful |
| M13 | Testified under oath that every grant was individually reviewed; a federal court found 'not one document showed any individualized review' in EPA's own production ↳ Truthfulness, documented falsehood under oath | None established on the record |
| M06 | Court found no individualized review behind ~$1.7B in grant terminations Zeldin attributed to careful scrutiny ↳ Faithful-execution / fiduciary stewardship | No office-attributable enrichment |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking with his own side at cost; advanced the 2020 overturn effort rather than dissenting from it ↳ Active call-out duty unmet | - |
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, the core of this pillar for an executive, is the central failure: documented participation in the 2020-21 effort to discredit a certified election, including the Meadows text proposing amplification of 'unvetted' claims. Service-derived Courage is real but does not offset a breach at the level of the oath. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 3 | why?Authenticity and Self-Reflection are undercut by a court-grade finding of a falsehood under oath about individualized grant review, with no documented ownership or correction. The drag toward the opposites (rationalization over accountability) dominates. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Power was used to punish, disciplining protected employee speech his own ethics office cleared, and publicizing criminal referrals against named opponents, rather than to protect the public or the institution. A drag toward Exploitation of position over Stewardship. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?Integrity and Love of Truth take the documented hits (sworn-testimony finding, the overturn-effort role). Operational competence is real but a legacy built on punishing critics and a contested election record does not read as one a citizen would want propagated. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 12/40 |
Total 12/40, Weak. The pillars hold low because the heaviest evidence sits on the oath-level pillars (constitutional loyalty, truthfulness, non-exploitation of power), where the documented conduct is adverse. Genuine military service and operational competence are real but do not lift pillars anchored on conduct toward the Constitution and the truth.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“We are going to be reconsidering many of the rules that have made it harder and more expensive to do business, the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States.”
Announcing sweeping EPA deregulatory actions · EPA / press coverage · CONTESTED · cite
“Every single grant was individually reviewed.”
Sworn testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the grant terminations; a federal court later found no document showed any individualized review · InsideEPA / New Republic coverage of EPW hearing · CONTESTED · cite
“This debate is necessary because rogue election officials, secretaries of state and courts circumvented state election laws.”
House floor, explaining his vote against certifying the 2020 results · RiverheadLOCAL · CONTESTED · cite
“Nothing in the dissent letter triggered the Hatch Act; the employees are simply exercising their first amendment rights to express their opinions.”
EPA Ethics Office director Justina Fugh's internal finding, Zeldin's agency disciplined the signers anyway · E&E News by POLITICO · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Lee Michael Zeldin (born January 30, 1980). 17th Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sworn in January 29, 2025 (current). Previously U.S. Representative for New York's 1st Congressional District (2015-2023); New York State Senator (2011-2015); 2022 Republican nominee for Governor of New York. U.S. Army / Army Reserve officer 2003-2025 (JAG Corps; Iraq 2006), retiring as Lieutenant Colonel. Attorney (Albany Law).
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Executive record (EPA Administrator, 2025-present): oversaw a large-scale deregulatory program he describes as "the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States," including moves to repeal the Endangerment Finding and roll back air, water, vehicle, and power-plant standards. Closed all ten regional environmental-justice offices; canceled or froze roughly $20-29B in grants. The policy MERITS of these actions are NOT graded here, per the framework's refusal to score policy in either direction; the CONDUCT around them (sworn-testimony accuracy, treatment of dissenters, faithful execution) is what the measures assess. Prior House record: four terms, defense/veterans focus; among the members who voted against certifying the 2020 results.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional test is adverse. On Jan 6 2021 Zeldin voted against certifying both Arizona and Pennsylvania, and a Nov 6 2020 text to chief of staff Mark Meadows (released by the Jan 6 Committee) proposed a press operation amplifying both "vetted" and expressly "unvetted alleged voting irregularities" to discredit a certified election. He condemned the Capitol violence and did not organize fake electors or pressure state officials to alter tallies, distinctions that matter and keep the conduct out of the terminal band, but the affirmative role in the overturn effort is the central record. As Administrator, multiple courts found EPA grant terminations unlawful under administrative law; those are litigated policy losses (scored as faithful-execution context, not as defiance of a binding order, absent refusal to comply).
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Combative-political rather than dehumanizing. The sharpest language ('Green New Scam,' public naming of adversary grantees) targets policy and named opponents, not citizens as a class unworthy of belonging. No documented incitement or anti-belonging pattern against a protected group. The rhetoric drag sits in decorum and in the credibility findings, not in enemy-making against the public.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no emoluments, self-dealing, or family-payment findings tied to the EPA post; pre-office wealth is not penalized. The fiduciary concern is faithful execution, not personal gain: a federal court reviewing EPA's own production found no individualized review behind grant terminations Zeldin attributed under oath to careful scrutiny.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One CAPPING severity flag is recorded under Criterion 8 (process subversion): documented participation in the 2020-21 effort to discredit and overturn a certified presidential election, the certification votes plus the Meadows text proposing amplification of expressly 'unvetted' irregularity claims. This uses legal-on-its-face power (a member's vote, private advocacy) toward defeating a constitutional purpose. It is held at CAPPING rather than TERMINAL because he condemned the violence, did not organize fake electors, and did not personally pressure state officials to alter counts, the terminal 'election-theft by force' bar is not met, and a human adjudicates that boundary. The dissent-letter discipline and the sworn-testimony finding are scored as heavy measure-level drags (M04, M13) but are not themselves separately flagged as capping. A capping flag forecloses support regardless of composite.
7. What The Framework Says
The standard applies the same fixed test it would to anyone. Lee Zeldin brings genuine military service and real operational competence to a large agency. But the conduct that the oath cares about most is adverse on the record: documented participation in the effort to discredit a certified 2020 election (the certification votes and the Meadows text), a court-grade finding that he testified falsely under oath about individualized grant review, and the discipline of employees for speech his own ethics office had cleared as protected. The contested policy agenda is set aside, not graded, exactly as the framework requires. What remains, on conduct alone, is a process-subversion capping flag that forecloses support, alongside heavy truthfulness and weaponization drags. Allegations not yet adjudicated (the criminal referrals) are weighed only as appearance-concern.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator · U.S. House Jan 6 Committee record (via reporting on Meadows texts)
Tier 2: E&E News by POLITICO · RiverheadLOCAL, certification votes
Research links: Wikipedia · EPA Administrator (official) · Ballotpedia · E&E News, dissent-letter discipline
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.