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


Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Newsom denies Trump spoke to him before deploying more National Guards
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday said President Trump did not speak with him, despite deploying national military personnel to respond to Los Angeles protests. Why it matters: Trump claimed that he had spoken with the governor and criticized his handling of the rallies against Immigration and Customs Enforcement's actions. "There was no call. Not even a voicemail," Newsom said on X. "Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to." Driving the news: Trump, speaking to the media on Tuesday, said he last talked with Newsom "a day ago." "Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job," Trump said. "He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death." Reality check: California authorities have not reported any deaths during the protests. A total of 72 people have been arrested over the past weekend, with five police officers being injured, according to local media report on Monday Context: The Marines deployed to LA have not yet responded to immigration protests.


Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."


Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Impeachment wars
Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."