In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at an open-air event in Utah on September 10, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives found itself embroiled in a heated debate over how, or even whether, to honor his legacy. The controversy reached new heights this weekend as Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) staunchly defended her vote against a resolution to honor Kirk, citing what she described as his history of targeting communities of color with divisive rhetoric.
Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on September 21, Crockett lamented that more of her Democratic colleagues did not join the 58 'no' votes cast against the resolution. She pointedly observed that, by her own count, all but two of the dissenters were people of color. "For the most part, the only people that voted no were people of color because the rhetoric that Charlie Kirk continuously put out there was rhetoric that specifically targeted people of color," she told CNN, according to Nexstar Media Inc.
Crockett’s remarks have since ignited a firestorm, with both supporters and critics weighing in on the fraught intersection of politics, race, and the legacy of a polarizing figure. The Texas congresswoman, herself a civil rights attorney, underscored the personal nature of Kirk’s rhetoric, noting that he had mentioned her by name on a podcast just a month before his death. "I wasn’t aware of this at the time, but he got out there and he was talking negatively about me directly," Crockett explained. "So if there was any way that I was going to honor somebody who decided that they were just going to negatively talk about me and proclaim that I was somehow involved in a ‘great white replacement,’ yeah, I’m not honoring that kind of stuff."
She continued, "Especially as a civil rights attorney, and understanding how I got to Congress, knowing that there were people that died, people that were willing to die, that worked to make sure that voices like mine could exist in this place." Crockett’s refusal to support the resolution, she argued, was rooted in a broader concern for the communities she represents and the legacy of the civil rights movement.
Yet Crockett was careful to draw a line between political opposition and violence. "Whether it’s heated or not, the fact is, Charlie Kirk should still be here," she said. "It should not have been that there was political violence that resulted because of the words that were coming out of his mouth." She further emphasized, "Not in America. That’s not who we are supposed to be." According to Nexstar Media Inc., Crockett made clear that while she opposed Kirk’s politics, she did not condone the violence that led to his death.
The debate, however, quickly spilled beyond the halls of Congress and into the media. On September 22, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings sharply criticized Crockett’s comments, calling her claims about Kirk’s rhetoric and alleged racism a "malicious smear." Jennings, who described himself as someone who had spent significant time with Kirk, insisted, "Charlie Kirk targeted nobody. He was not racist in any way. I’ve listened to hours and hours and hours and hours of Charlie Kirk debates and talks and have been with Charlie Kirk and did events with Charlie Kirk and knew Charlie Kirk. There wasn’t a racist bone in his body."
Jennings went on to express his dismay at what he viewed as a partisan attack on the day Kirk was to be laid to rest. "To say that he was continuously targeting people of color is nothing but a malicious smear on the very day that people are remembering Charlie, and he’s going to be laid to rest." He further noted, "I think when you combine the no votes on the resolution and then you look at the leading democratic voices like Ilhan Omar and Jasmine Crockett, who’ve gone out to smear Charlie before he’s even had his funeral... I was shocked at that. Well, I guess I should say I’m shocked by her, but I was a little, little stunned by what happened this morning."
The controversy was not limited to the Kirk resolution. Just days earlier, on September 11, four Republicans had joined Democrats to defeat a separate resolution that sought to censure Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for comments she made on Zeteo News. Omar, in a conversation with Mehdi Hasan, had sharply criticized defenders of Kirk’s campus appearances, reportedly declaring that those supporting him were "full of shit." This episode, too, became a flashpoint in the broader debate over free speech, civility, and the boundaries of political discourse.
Crockett, for her part, has developed a reputation for making bold, sometimes incendiary statements on a range of issues. She has previously compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to "slave patrols," defended comparisons of former President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during a September 12 appearance on "The Breakfast Club," and claimed that Trump supporters were "mentally ill." Crockett has also been criticized for mocking Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who uses a wheelchair. These remarks have drawn both condemnation and praise from different corners of the political spectrum, highlighting the deep divides that persist in American political culture.
Supporters of Crockett argue that her outspokenness is a necessary antidote to what they see as the normalization of harmful rhetoric and policies. They contend that honoring figures like Kirk, whose activism was often controversial, sends the wrong message to marginalized communities. As Crockett herself put it, "It is unfortunate that more of my colleagues, even on my side of the aisle, could not see the amount of harm that this man was attempting to inflict upon our communities."
Critics, however, see Crockett’s comments as emblematic of a broader problem: a tendency to demonize political opponents and stoke division at a time when calls for unity are growing louder. Jennings, reflecting this perspective, urged Democrats to "look inward" and reconsider the impact of their rhetoric. "When I hear people say, we need to come together and both sides need to turn down the rhetoric, you know, a lot of the people saying that need to look inward right now," he said on CNN.
The debate over how to remember Charlie Kirk—and who gets to define his legacy—remains unresolved. For some, Kirk was a tireless advocate for conservative values and free speech, a man whose life was cut tragically short by political violence. For others, his brand of activism represented a threat to the progress made by civil rights movements and communities of color.
As Congress and the country grapple with these questions, one thing is clear: the battle over memory, meaning, and the boundaries of political discourse is far from over. The events of this past week serve as a stark reminder of just how high the stakes have become—and how urgently Americans must confront the consequences of their words and actions in a polarized era.