How candidate profiles are assessed
Read the evidence before the number.
Our proposed 0–100 scores measure alignment with defined policy goals. They are editorial measures, not objective labels of “pro-military,” an endorsement, or election probabilities. Greater defense spending is not automatically better for military families or veterans. Military service and party affiliation earn no points.
Three separate areas
Military & pay
Pay continuity and purchasing power; access to servicemember health care; readiness and safe working conditions.
Military families
Safe and affordable housing; accessible childcare and dependent care; spouse employment and portable credentials.
Veterans
Accessible VA and mental healthcare; earned disability, education and survivor benefits; transition, employment and housing support.
What a number means
A reviewed official action receives +1 when it advances the stated criterion, −1 when it restricts it, or 0 for a documented mixed effect. A written reason and official source must be published for each assessment. Non-votes, missing evidence and campaign promises do not count as zero.
Within each of an area’s three criteria, average the action values. Weight the three criterion averages equally. The score is 50 + 50 × their average, rounded to a whole number. Thus 100 means all scored actions advance these criteria; 0 means all oppose them. Neither means universally good or bad policy.
When a score is withheld
Each area needs at least five distinct official legislative measures, evidence in all three criteria, and a completed review of relevant available actions from January 2021 through the profile’s review date. Duplicate reporting of one bill never increases its weight. Reviewers must assess supportive, restrictive and mixed actions using the same rules. Scores remain “Not enough evidence” until these conditions are met. Initial profiles do not yet meet this threshold.
Campaign-site assessment
Completed assessments list the campaign pages read, their review date, what is specifically proposed and what remains unspecified. A gap means no specific proposal was identified in those named pages; it is not a claim about every statement the candidate has ever made. Biographies, endorsements and coalition membership are not substitutes for policy detail. Potential benefits and tradeoffs are editorial analysis, separated from factual claims.
Promises, votes and results are different
Campaign platforms describe stated intentions. Sponsorship, committee action, roll-call votes, enactment and implementation are shown separately. A vote on an omnibus bill does not prove support for every provision. Such votes are excluded from scoring until their relevant provisions and conflicting effects are reviewed. A bill’s passage does not by itself demonstrate funded delivery or measurable outcomes.
Contracting and tradeoffs
Contracting is discussed separately: competition, oversight, workforce, delivery and opportunities for veteran-owned businesses can pull in different directions. We do not treat larger contracts, donations from defense firms or endorsements as evidence of better outcomes for personnel.
Coverage and corrections
Profiles show the source-review date and limitations. Summaries may be assisted by software; linked sources are the basis for every factual claim. The current selection is incomplete and cannot support rankings across all candidates. Opponents’ claims are not adopted as findings. New evidence can change an assessment, and the record should be re-reviewed before any score is published.
Download the evidence dataset · Browse profiles
Independence & editorial disclaimer
DutyStation publishes these profiles as independent editorial research. This page is not authorized, sponsored, approved or endorsed by any candidate, campaign or political party. Inclusion, campaign links and published responses do not constitute an endorsement by DutyStation, and a campaign’s participation does not mean it endorses our assessment.
DutyStation is not an official government, Department of Defense, military service or Department of Veterans Affairs publication. Names, images and links identify the subjects and sources; they do not imply affiliation or endorsement.
Policy summaries, potential benefits, tradeoffs and any scores are editorial assessments under our published methodology, not measures of patriotism or recommendations on how to vote. Forecasts are estimates, not guarantees. Missing information, an unpublished score or a campaign’s lack of response is not evidence of opposition to the military, military families or veterans.
Profiles may use AI-assisted research and summarization, which can contain errors. Coverage is incomplete and reflects the sources and review dates shown; positions and records can change. Check the linked original sources. Campaign statements and responses represent the campaign’s own claims, not independently verified outcomes. When published, responses will be attributed and distinguished from DutyStation’s analysis; providing a response does not confer editorial control.
For additions or factual corrections, email [email protected] with the profile link, the disputed passage and supporting sources. DutyStation will review submissions and correct material where the evidence supports a change. External websites are controlled by their respective publishers.