The Sorry Truth About Rep. Derrick Van Orden
ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE STATE of Wisconsin, I would like to apologize for the statements, actions, and indeed the very existence of U.S. Congressman Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.). Although he is in fact an elected representative, he is not representative of the vast majority of us Wisconsinites. In fact, this guy embarrasses the hell out of us.
Van Orden, a former Navy SEAL and bit-part movie actor (in the 2012 film Act of Valor, he delivers the line 'Shit filter's full' while interrogating a terrorist), was re-elected last November to a second term on the strength of heavily gerrymandered congressional maps. Of the thirty-two bills and resolutions Van Orden sponsored in the 118th U.S. Congress (2023–24), exactly none became law; just three bills passed the GOP-controlled House before dying in the Senate, and a single Van Orden resolution received agreement in the House: It encourages all Americans to 'engage with veterans.' A legislative titan he is not.
Despite this sorry record, Van Orden has nonetheless managed to make a name for himself in Congress, placing high in such categories as crudest, meanest, dumbest, and most obnoxious.
He's been edging out competition in these categories for years. In August 2023, I wrote a piece for The Bulwark that ran under the headline, 'Derrick Van Orden Makes No Apologies for Being a Jerk.' At that time, he had just drawn national attention for having vulgarly berated a group of 16- and 17-year-old Senate pages who were in the Capitol just after midnight, engaged in a Senate page tradition of lying on the Rotunda floor taking photos of the Capitol dome. Van Orden happened upon them after leaving an event in his Capitol office at which the beer and liquor had flowed freely.
'Wake the fuck up, you little shits,' he shouted. 'What the fuck are you all doing? Get the fuck out of here.' Van Orden called the teenagers 'jackasses' and 'pieces of shit,' reportedly 'screaming inches from the pages' faces.' His outburst drew sharp condemnation, including a public rebuke from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): 'This is inexcusable and embarrassing behavior for a member of Congress or any adult for that matter. The Congressman should do the right thing and apologize.'
Apologize, Van Orden did not. Instead, he issued a statement bizarrely accusing the pages of 'threatening a congressman with bad press to excuse poor behavior,' adding, even more bizarrely, 'Luckily, bad press has never bothered me and if it's the price I pay to stand up for what's right, then so be it.'
Okey dokey.
Van Orden was similarly bereft of contrition in 2021 when he upbraided a 17-year-old girl who was working at a public library in his district in western Wisconsin. The then-candidate for Congress was upset to see a display of LGBTQ-themed books that had been set up in recognition of Pride Month. 'His voice was loud, he was aggressive, he had his finger jabbing into [the book] constantly,' the girl told the local paper. 'He was full-on shouting at this point and he kept aggressively shoving the books around.'
Again, true to form, Van Orden could not muster an apology, instead issuing a statement in which he claimed the moral high ground: 'There are people who continue to divide us as Americans for political purposes,' he wrote. 'I will not allow them to further degrade the relationships we have as citizens.'
What a piece of work this guy is.
Join the best pro-democracy community on the internet: Sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription today.
Also in 2021, before he was first elected, Van Orden got nabbed at an airport in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, with a loaded handgun in his carry-on luggage, for which he was fined and ordered to take a firearms-safety course. Of course, Van Orden framed the experience in a way that deflected blame and minimized culpability, with his campaign issuing a statement proclaiming him 'a decorated Navy SEAL veteran with 5 deployments to combat zones who is an expert with firearms and firearm safety.' Why, he should be allowed to bring loaded guns on planes!
This all was, as I noted at the time, part of a pattern: Van Orden's deplorable behavior 'is always excusable and never his fault.'
SINCE THIS EARLIER ELUCIDATION, Van Orden's deplorableness has continued, including his social-media meltdown last year in response to Trump's conviction on thirty-four felony counts for falsifying business records to hide hush-money payments to a porn actress.
In one post, Van Orden described presiding Justice Juan Merchan as 'Communist Scum.' In another, he ran Merchan's picture alongside that of Roland Freisler, a Nazi judge few would recognize, with the message 'Same vibe, different hair stylist.' He also derided former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, a fellow Republican, for saying 'the jury verdict should be respected.' Van Orden quote-tweeted Hutchinson to broadcast his reply: 'You have just permanently disgraced yourself and destroyed any positive legacy you had. Kick Rocks, coward.'
A few days ago, on February 21, Van Orden posted on X the image of a very large shirtless man in overalls shopping at Walmart. In the caption, Van Orden mockingly claims the man is Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a fellow member of the state's congressional delegation and Van Orden's nemesis. He writes: 'He has to go incognito because all of the farmers just love him for the zero work he has done for them.' I'll spare you the image, although it's available at the link above. But here is a sampling of the comments that were posted in response:
'What an embarrassment to the office. This is beneath even you.'
'Grow up, jerk. Act like a man for a change.'
'Real Wisconsin has no use for scrubs like you.'
'What a pathetic piece of shit you are.'
'How old are you? Grow the f up you drunken disgrace.'
'[D]oes your permanent disability from the military relate to being a fucking asshole?'
'Drunk again eh? Fuck you Derrick you disgrace to Wisconsin.'
'Good grief. You are a man baby. You were not voted in office to do this.'
'You are a fricking disgrace as a representative!!'
'WTF is wrong with you? How does any of this serve your constituents? Debate him like a normal human being or shut the fuck up and drown yourself in your booze.'
Was Van Orden chastened by this backlash? Did it cause him to rethink his behavior? Perhaps the remarks alluding to being drunk might make him want to distance himself from such a reputation? Are you kidding?
Three days later, this is what the congressman posted in response to someone who suggested he should consider 'pushing back from alcohol':
Again, I apologize. I am sorry that you had to see that. I'm even sorrier that this is not the most outrageous work product to issue from Van Orden in recent days.
You heard me. Read on.
ON FEBRUARY 18, VAN ORDEN introduced a House resolution calling for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of New York for 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'
Engelmayer's offense? He temporarily blocked members of co-President Elon Musk's DOGE team from accessing Treasury Department records on millions of Americans, including bank account and Social Security numbers, in response to a lawsuit filed by nineteen Democratic attorneys general. Or, as Van Orden put it in his resolution:
Engelmayer has abused his judicial office by using his authority to further personal or political interests, contrary to the constitutional responsibility to apply the law impartially, including the improper handling of this case in a manner that demonstrates favoritism or undue influence, undermining the fundamental principles of justice.
The resolution says Engelmayer, a former law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall who was appointed to the federal bench for the Southern District of New York by President Barack Obama, 'engaged in judicial misconduct when he halted President Donald J. Trump's Executive order establishing and implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency on purely political grounds, demonstrating clear bias and prejudice against the President and the 74,000,000 Americans who voted for him.'
Actually, Trump was elected last November with more than 77 million votes. The error has been pointed out but not corrected.
Van Orden followed his resolution with a post on Musk's social media site X. 'The time for Judicial Activism is over,' he proclaimed. 'The American people gave @realDonaldTrump a mandate and no politician disguised as a jurist will interfere with it.'
Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) introduced his own resolution to impeach Engelmayer a few days later, alleging that 'by making a political decision outside the scope of his legal duties, he compromised the impartiality of our judicial system.'
Both resolutions seem to have been inspired by Musk's own insane assertions about Engelmayer's exercise of judicial authority. ('A corrupt judge protecting corruption,' Musk posted. 'He needs to be impeached NOW!') Trump himself added fuel to the fire, declaring from the Oval Office, with Musk at his side, 'It seems hard to believe that judges want to try and stop us from looking for corruption.' Trump added, 'It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, 'We don't want you to do that,' so maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that's a very serious violation.'
Van Orden's resolution—which, as of this writing, has attracted a total of zero cosponsors (Crane's has garnered several)—is plainly ridiculous. As his colleague Rep. Pocan gibed, 'Maybe if Derrick took time . . . to read the Constitution, he'd realize there are three equal branches of government, and that we have laws in this country that must be followed no matter who is in charge.'
The editorial board of the Wisconsin State Journal also rang up the congressman, in a February 23 editorial titled, 'Derrick Van Orden's impeachment ploy is absurd, dangerous.' Van Orden's resolution, the paper noted, claims Engelmayer 'may have' acted with political intent, which it called a 'new and incredibly low standard for impeachment' under which 'any judge in the country could be similarly targeted for removal from the bench.'
'Van Orden's grandstanding,' the State Journal warned, 'will erode the integrity of our judiciary and threaten the rule of law.' It urged voters in his western Wisconsin district to 'remember Van Orden's rash impeachment ploy the next time he seeks their votes.'
Hope springs eternal—or at least once every two years.
Share The Bulwark
IN 2023, WHEN THE STORY BROKE about Van Orden's verbal assault on teenage Senate pages in the Capitol, he told a reporter—by way of framing the issue in a way that made his own disgusting behavior seem honorable—that the Rotunda had been used as a field hospital during the Civil War. 'I would think that I'd be terribly disrespectful to lay on the grave of a soldier that died fighting for freedom,' he said.
Van Orden's comments prompted Pocan to tweet: 'Wonder if he told that to his fellow insurrectionists, who were beating police officers on the same ground?'
Yes, it's true: Van Orden was among the many thousands of Trump supporters who showed up in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the result of a free and fair election. He has claimed he did not enter the Capitol grounds, but the Daily Beast later published photos showing him in a restricted area.
In recent months, Van Orden has drawn plaudits for demonstrating the uncommon courage to 'speak against Trump's pardons of the most violent offenders that day,' as the State Journal wrote in its editorial. The paper said he deserved credit 'for defending police officers beaten by protesters,' which really does not seem that heavy a lift. Its basis for this claim, set forth in an earlier editorial, is that Van Orden told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 'I do not support pardoning people who assaulted our police officers.'
First of all, it should be noted this bold declaration of nonsupport for cop beaters came only after the advocacy group Courage for America ran an ad in daily newspapers in Van Orden's district urging his constituents to 'CALL CONGRESSMAN VAN ORDEN TODAY AND DEMAND HE OPPOSE THE PARDONING OF ANY JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTIONISTS.'
Moreover, Van Orden's comment was in no way a repudiation of Trump's decision to pardon even the most violent participants in what the newly reinstalled president has rebranded as 'a day of love.' Van Orden went on to say, in that very same Journal Sentinel article, that he 'fully' supports pardons for those who 'non-violently' entered the Capitol (perhaps by climbing through smashed windows), and further, he thinks those convicted of committing violence against police should have their sentences commuted.
'Gotta be very clear here,' Van Orden is quoted as saying. 'The folks that assaulted police officers sentences should have been commuted years ago to match an equivalent crime from anywhere around the country.'
This is the essence and extent of Van Orden's purportedly courageous criticism of Trump for turning loose the hooligans who brutalized law enforcement. It is actually an affirmation of his belief that they all should be released to receive their heroes' welcome.
Wisconsin deserves better than to be affiliated with this awful man. So does the House of Representatives. So do we all. Please, dear nation, accept our apologies. Derrick Van Orden does not know how to make them.
Share this article with two Wisconsinites, a Michigander, and a Minnesotan.
Share
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know
President Trump has lauded the House-approved spending bill for the 'pro-family initiative' tucked inside the legislation, which creates investment accounts for newborn babies. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy,' Trump said at a Monday event at the White House that touted the accounts. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' lays out rules for the Trump accounts. To qualify, a child must be a U.S. citizen, born within the next four years to at least one parent with a Social Security number. The money could be withdrawn starting at age 18. Here's what you need to know about the proposed federal program: Under the current bill text, the program would be available to families of all income levels, with babies born after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029. A one-time $1,000 contribution would be provided by the Treasury Department and deposited into a diversified U.S. stock index fund or its equivalent. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to contribute no more than $5,000 per year to the account. An estimated 7 percent return on the $1,000 would compound to roughly $3,570 over 18 years, according to the Associated Press. The legislation does not provide a limit on the amount of money a nonprofit or company can donate to a child's investment account within the $5,000 annual contribution limit. Several businesses, including Uber, Dell, Goldman Sachs and Altimeter have committed to setting aside billions to invest in the accounts of company employees who become new parents. 'It's not just an account; it's a launchpad. It puts the unstoppable engine of compounding to work for our kids, building a future for them from day one,' Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said about the initiative during a White House roundtable. Children enrolled in the investment program are eligible to withdraw half of the cash value amount between their 18th and 25th birthdays, according to CNN. Families and beneficiaries would pay a penalty for early withdrawal as there is no allowance for emergency use of the funds, the outlet reported. Funds withdrawn for anything other than 'qualified expenses,' including paying for higher education, buying a residence or starting a business, will be taxed. Researchers have said the investment accounts could widen America's wealth gap. 'Under the current proposal, every child starts with the same amount, and families can contribute up to $5,000 annually,' the Urban Institute, a think-tank focused on social policy, wrote in a late May report. 'But relatively few households hold substantial liquid wealth in the United States, meaning higher-income households are far more likely than their lower-income counterparts to have the means to contribute additional funds,' it continued. The study noted that Trump accounts are likely to only benefit those who have already maxed out existing tax-preferred savings opportunities, like 529 accounts. Instead, they suggested low income families with job insecurity are more likely to gravitate towards investing in traditional accounts that offer flexible guidelines. Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' still needs approval from the upper chamber. Senators considering potential changes or cuts to the legislation, hoping to pass the bill before July 4.


CNBC
15 minutes ago
- CNBC
Why Elon Musk turned against Trump's $5 trillion mega tax and spending bill
President Donald Trump is pushing to pass a sweeping tax and spending bill by July 4, but the proposal is already sparking fierce internal GOP debate. The bill combines 2017 tax cut extensions with new Trump-era proposals, including deductions on American-made auto loans and changes to child tax credits. But not everyone is on board. Elon Musk has launched a high-profile feud with Trump over the bill, and key Republican senators are warning that the bill could add trillions to the national debt.


Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Washington Post editorial admits colleges must take 'strenuous action' to restore free exchange of ideas
Harvard may win its legal battle against the Trump administration, but the fight to restore confidence in higher education as defenders of the "free exchange of ideas" would still be far from over, The Washington Post editorial board wrote on Tuesday. "In the past decade, trust in higher education has dropped precipitously. Ten years ago, a robust majority of Americans told Gallup they had a 'great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in higher education; today, only one-third of Americans say the same," the editorial stated, highlighting similar concerns over an uptick in those who say they have "very little" or "no" confidence in higher education. That percentage rose to 32% from 10% a decade ago. Such discontent with higher education has created opportunities for Republicans to seize on the trend and "attack the foundations of academic independence," the board argued. A cocktail of problems, ranging from free speech concerns to rising costs and lower returns on investment, was said to have fed into the growing distrust. In one corner, conservative faculty members have reported self-censoring due to fear of how others might respond to their opinions. The Post argued this isn't isolated to one group, however, and that left-wing voices are also choosing to stay quiet when controversial topics are discussed. "In an academic community in which 'diversity statements' are required of new hires (and professors can be denied jobs merely for criticizing them), university administrations and disciplines issue official statements embracing social justice causes, journal editors apologize for or withdraw papers that offend the left, and conservative professors are becoming an increasingly endangered species, even moderates or those on the center-left can reasonably wonder what they're allowed to say, and universities can seem drastically out of step with mainstream society," the editorial said. The editorial board went on to say that institutions of higher education lack a solid foundation to demand that the government respect their "academic freedom" unless they demand the same from their own teachers and leaders. "The worst of this political fever might be behind us, but academia will have to take strenuous action to restore its reputation as defenders of the free exchange of ideas…" "Renaming the diversity, equity and inclusion office will not suffice; they need to foster a campus environment in which the frank discussion of ideas is the core value. If they do not, they will find the public yawning as conservative attacks intensify and courts struggle to contain the damage," the Post's editorial board continued.