U.S. Rep. Cory Mills released a four-minute video defending his decision to block a resolution that would have censured Rep. Ilhan Omar. The Florida Republican was one of four GOP lawmakers who joined Democrats in a 214–213 vote to table the measure, which sought to punish Omar over comments she made about conservative activist Charlie Kirk after his death.
Mills said his vote wasn’t about protecting Omar but about upholding the Constitution. “This isn’t about just vengeance,” he explained. “This is about upholding our Constitution.” He described Omar’s words as “vile,” “abhorrent,” and “evil,” but argued that punishing a lawmaker for speech crosses a line.
The controversy began after Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, reacted to Kirk’s killing by dismissing attempts to portray him as a fair debater. “These people are full of shit, and it’s important for us to call them out while we feel anger and sadness,” she said in an interview. That comment infuriated many conservatives, prompting Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, to file a resolution to censure Omar and strip her committee assignments.
Tensions escalated when Mace accused Mills of threatening her after she introduced the measure. Mills denied that accusation. At the same time, Democrats had filed their own resolution to censure Mills over personal controversies, which critics said suggested a deal had been struck. Mills rejected those claims in his video, saying his decision was not part of any “vote-for-vote exchange.”
To make his case, Mills compared the Omar motion with an earlier failed effort to censure Rep. LaMonica McIver, a Democrat accused of laying hands on an immigration officer. He had supported censuring McIver, arguing her actions occurred in her official role. But when it came to Omar, Mills said her case was different because it was about speech — and protecting even offensive speech is a constitutional principle.
Mills acknowledged Omar’s comments were painful, especially to Kirk’s supporters, but said trying to silence her would backfire. He pointed to the example of Adam Schiff, who used his censure by Republicans as a fundraising tool that helped boost his Senate campaign. Mills warned that censuring Omar would likely make her a “free speech martyr,” strengthen her following, and increase her influence rather than reduce it.
Instead, he suggested other forms of accountability, like removing lawmakers from committees or issuing formal condemnations. But, he stressed, those steps should not infringe on the fundamental right to free expression.
Mills also praised Kirk, calling him “an amazing man” who believed in open debate and never shied away from tough conversations. He recalled how Kirk often allowed critics to challenge him publicly, even when they used insults or harsh language. Mills highlighted one of Kirk’s own social media posts from May 2024, where the activist wrote: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Mills said his decision was rooted in that same principle. “If we’re trying to make sure that this type of rhetoric doesn’t get out and that it doesn’t take hold, elevating someone and making them a free speech martyr is not going to achieve that,” he said. “What we want to do is have consequences in a way that doesn’t silence free speech.”
