WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives passed a controversial resolution honoring conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 20, 2025, igniting fierce debate and exposing deep divisions across party lines. The measure, introduced by Speaker Mike Johnson, sailed through with a 310–58 vote, while 38 lawmakers chose to vote “present.” Yet, behind the decisive tally was a torrent of disagreement about the legacy of Kirk and what the resolution truly represented.
Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated earlier this month, a tragedy that shocked the nation and prompted calls for unity against political violence. But as Congress moved to memorialize Kirk, the language of the resolution — and the man it sought to honor — became a flashpoint. According to AP, the resolution described Kirk as “a model for young Americans,” someone who “sought to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.” It praised his commitment to civil discourse and his defense of American founding principles.
For many Republicans, the vote was a straightforward matter of condemning violence and honoring a prominent voice in conservative politics. Speaker Johnson insisted, “We are honoring someone who contributed greatly to the free marketplace of ideas and public discourse and who died in a disgraceful, horrific manner.” He maintained there was “no partisan language” in the resolution and said there was “no excuse” for anyone not to support it.
Alabama Republican Party Chairman John Wahl echoed this sentiment, criticizing his state’s two Democratic representatives, Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures, for voting against the measure. Wahl stated, “It’s disappointing that the Democratic representatives from Alabama could not come together in honoring the life of Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk loved this country and his generation. He dedicated his career to giving a voice to young conservatives across this nation. Even if someone disagreed with his political views, his tragic death should be an opportunity for all of us to come together in condemning violence and recognizing the value of every human life.”
But for many Democrats, the issue was anything but simple. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) overwhelmingly opposed the resolution, with 43 members voting no, four present, four yes, and four absent, as reported by multiple sources. Their opposition — and that of other progressives — centered not on the condemnation of violence, but on the resolution’s language, which they argued whitewashed Kirk’s long history of inflammatory and divisive rhetoric.
Representative Terri Sewell of Alabama, who voted against the resolution, condemned Kirk’s assassination “in the strongest possible terms” and emphasized, “There should be no place for political violence in America. All Americans—including Charlie Kirk—should have the right to express their views, however controversial, without fear of violence. I mourn with his wife and children during this painful time.” However, she added, “If condemning violence was the purpose of today’s resolution, it would have my full support. That’s why I signed on to a resolution led by Rep. Marc Veasey condemning Charlie Kirk’s assassination and all political violence. I would have also supported the Senate resolution which passed unanimously earlier this week. In a clear effort to further divide Americans and Members of Congress, unfortunately, the resolution House Republicans brought to the floor today included divisive language glorifying the viewpoints Charlie Kirk espoused.”
Sewell pointed to Kirk’s statements disparaging African Americans and civil rights achievements, saying, “Charlie Kirk called the passage of the Civil Rights Act a mistake. He has repeatedly disparaged the accomplishments of African Americans and insulted our intelligence. He said ‘Blacks were actually better off in the 1940s. They committed less crimes.’ As a Black woman and the representative of our nation’s civil rights district, I cannot vote to celebrate an ideology that runs counter to the values that so many of our fellow Alabamians fought, bled, and died for.”
Rep. Shomari Figures, also from Alabama, shared similar concerns, stating, “As I did on the day this incredibly unfortunate assassination happened, I strongly condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It was completely unjustifiable and unacceptable, and my prayers are with his family. House Republicans could have offered the Senate resolution that passed unanimously, but chose not to. But as a Black representative of a historical civil rights district in Alabama, I cannot support a resolution that includes language that honors the ‘leadership and legacy’ of a man whose ideology and words consistently demeaned, disrespected, and ridiculed Black people.”
The CBC released a statement underscoring their stance: “At the same time, we must condemn violence without abandoning our right to speak out against ideas that are inconsistent with our values as Americans. We strongly disagree with many of the beliefs Charlie Kirk promoted: including his belief that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended racial segregation, was a mistake; his denial that systemic racism exists; his promotion of the Great Replacement theory; and his offensive claims about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee lacking adequate cognitive ability.”
Prominent progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) also voted against the resolution, arguing that it “brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.” AOC explained, “Condemning the depravity of Kirk’s brutal murder is a straightforward matter — one that is especially important to help stabilize an increasingly unsafe and volatile political environment where everyday people feel at risk. We can disagree with Charlie and come together as a country to denounce the horror of killing. That is a bedrock American value.” However, she criticized Republicans for “choosing to introduce this resolution on a purely partisan basis, instead of uniting Congress in this tragedy with one of the many bipartisan options to condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder.”
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries tried to bridge the divide, affirming, “No single member of the House Democratic caucus, not a single member, condones political violence in America.” Still, the internal party debate was palpable. Some Democrats, like Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan, supported the resolution, saying, “his horrific killing, and this volatile time require all of us to reject violence, hate, and anger without hesitation.” Others, such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal, saw the measure as a “political ‘gotcha’ — trying to force every member of Congress to lift up the views of Charlie Kirk rather than simply condemning his assassination.”
The fallout extended beyond the House floor. According to AP, the days following Kirk’s assassination saw heightened tensions, with firings and aggressive pressure campaigns targeting those who criticized Kirk’s views. Republicans, meanwhile, planned to attend Kirk’s funeral in Arizona on September 21, 2025, with Speaker Johnson pledging to “advance the principles that he advanced, and to adopt his approach.”
The vote on the resolution ultimately became a referendum not just on Kirk’s life, but on the broader battle over how America confronts its history, its divisions, and the boundaries of political discourse. As the nation continues to grapple with the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, the debate over how to honor — or critique — his legacy is far from over.
