Republican lawmakers are criticizing Democrats after a House resolution honoring the life and legacy of conservative activist Charlie Kirk passed with a divided vote last week. While the measure did pass with bipartisan support, Democrats were sharply split: 95 voted in favor, 58 opposed, 38 voted “present,” and 22 did not vote at all. Republicans have seized on the division, accusing Democrats of hypocrisy when compared to their unanimous support for a similar resolution earlier this year.
In June, the House had voted 424-0 to condemn an attack in Minnesota where Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, and State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were critically injured. That resolution honored the victims, praised first responders, and called for unity against political violence. Republicans argue that the contrast in voting patterns between the two resolutions is glaring.
Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona said the Minnesota resolution showed that House Republicans were willing to condemn violence against Democrats, yet “not even half of House Democrats voted to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk.” Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina echoed this point, stressing that after lawmakers were killed and injured in Minnesota, every member of Congress condemned the violence. But, she argued, Democrats failed to show the same unity after Kirk’s death.
Representative Greg Steube of Florida claimed Democrats’ refusal to back the Kirk resolution would hurt them politically in the upcoming midterm elections. He suggested that voters would remember in 2026 that dozens of Democrats did not support the measure. Another Republican, Representative Randy Fine of Florida, criticized the 38 Democrats who voted “present,” saying they were avoiding accountability.
The resolution honoring Kirk went further than the Minnesota measure by not only condemning violence but also celebrating Kirk’s career. It praised him as a leading conservative voice who promoted free speech and respectful debate, especially on college campuses. It also described him as someone who upheld the values of the First Amendment with honor and courage, while calling on all Americans to reject political violence.
This more personal and celebratory language caused discomfort among many Democrats. Some who opposed the resolution stressed that while they condemn political violence, they could not support language that elevated Kirk as a hero. Representative Shri Thandear of Michigan said empathy for his death did not require “celebration,” accusing Kirk of repeatedly disparaging minorities, particularly Black Americans.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York took a similar stance. She said condemning Kirk’s murder was important for the stability of the country, but she accused Republicans of using the resolution to divide rather than unite. According to her, Congress could have passed a bipartisan resolution focused solely on condemning political violence, as it did after the Minnesota tragedy. Instead, she argued, Republicans chose to portray Kirk as a unifying figure despite his record of rhetoric she described as ignorant and harmful to millions of Americans.
For Republicans, the debate is about consistency and fairness, pointing to their unanimous support when Democrats were victims of violence. For Democrats, the issue lies in how Kirk himself was portrayed in the resolution. While both sides agree political violence must be condemned, the disagreement over how to frame Kirk’s legacy has turned a vote of unity into a new front in partisan conflict.
