The Charlie Kirk Resolution: Where is the Outrage?

Christine A. Yared

October 17, 2025

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was violently killed while exercising his First Amendment right at a college campus. No one should be killed because they engage in political speech. It is an immoral, criminal act that threatens our liberty.

In response to this killing, on September 19, the House of Representatives voted in favor of Resolution 719, whose stated purpose was to honor “the life and legacy” of Charlie Kirk. The resolution, which had 196 co-sponsors, passed by a vote of 310-58. Ninety-five Democrats voted in favor of it.

The resolution describes Kirk’s work as having been the embodiment of many of our nation’s fundamental tenets, stating:    

·        Kirk was a “fierce defender” of the American founding and its timeless principles of…liberty,”  

·        Kirk “engag[ed] in respectful, civil discourse…always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.”

·        Kirk exercised his right to speak freely “with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;

·       Kirk’s “commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans “across the political spectrum,” and he “worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction“

·       that the House of Representatives…”honors the…legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to…civil discourse…inspired a generation”

These descriptions of Kirk’s work, however, do not accurately reflect his stated beliefs.

Charlie Kirk’s Words

The following are some of Kirk's actual statements that are deeply disturbing regarding his “fellow Americans.”

On Black People

"MLK was awful. He's not a good person." (Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA convention, Dec. 2023)

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” (Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA convention, Dec. 2023)

Joy Reid [political commentator], Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee [the late House Representative], and Ketanji Brown Jackson [U.S. Supreme Court Justice]…You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.” (The Charlie Kirk Show, July 13, 2023, describing his view of four highly accomplished Black women)

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” (The Charlie Kirk Show, May 19, 2023)

“If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.” (The Charlie Kirk Show, Jan. 23, 2024)

“If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” (The Charlie Kirk Show, Jan. 3, 2024)

On Women

“It [birth control] is awful, it’s terrible…it creates very angry and bitter young ladies and young women.”

(Charlie Kirk, April 2024)

“And then in their early 30s they [women] get really upset because they say, ‘you know, the boys don’t want to date me anymore,’ because they’re not at their prime and people get mad when I say that — well, it’s just true. “You’re in your early 30s, I’m sorry, you’re not as attractive in the dating pool as you were in your early 20s, but again, you have your corporate job and cats…” (Charlie Kirk, April 2024)

On LGBTQ+ Identity

“We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.” (The Charlie Kirk Show, April 1, 2024)

“If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States [M]arine?”

   (The Charlie Kirk Show, Dec. 8, 2022)

On Islam

“...Islam is not compatible with western civilization.” (The Charlie Kirk Show, June 24, 2025)

“America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.” (The Charlie Kirk Show, April 30, 2025)

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” (Charlie Kirk, media post, Sept. 8, 2025)

On Immigration

“America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.” (The Charlie Kirk Show, Aug. 22, 2025)

“The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.” (The Charlie Kirk Show March 1, 2024)

On the Brutal Attack of Paul Pelosi, the 82-year-old Husband

of Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Kirk spoke about the man who was arrested for breaking into the Pelosi home and attacking Paul Pelosi with a hammer, stating:

“And why is he still in jail? Why has he not been bailed out?...By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero,       someone should go and bail this guy out” (The Charlie Kirk Show, Oct. 31, 2022)

Based on Kirk’s actual statements, he clearly furthered prejudice and spread false, derogatory claims about Black people, other people of color, Muslims, immigrants, women, and people who identify as LGBTQ+. He promoted division, not unity; distrust, not understanding; and disdain, not respect.

The claim that Kirk “inspired a generation” is overstated. Though many young people were drawn to Kirk, their numbers did not constitute an entire generation. On the contrary, many young people strongly disagreed with his views, others vaguely knew who he was or had never heard of him.  

Other Problematic Aspects of the Resolution

Resolution 719 does accurately recognize that Kirk’s life was “tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence.” It also acknowledges that “the rise in targeted violence against individuals for their political beliefs undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy civic society.”

However, if the House wanted to condemn all political violence based on free speech, it could have passed a bipartisan resolution which also included reference to the political assassination of Minnesota’s Speaker of the House, Melissa Hortman, and her husband Mark, who were killed in their home on June 15, 2025, less than three months earlier. Instead they passed a politicized resolution containing inaccurate information about Kirk’s work, painting a skewed picture of his legacy.

The Vote

Thirty-eight, all Democrats, voted “present.” A “present” vote does not count towards or against the passage of a bill. It only counts towards quorum – the minimum number of representatives needed to be present in order for a vote to occur. Twenty-two Democrats did not vote. Voting "present" or not voting are methods typically used by weak politicians in an attempt to avoid controversy.  

Explaining the Vote

Why did 310 representatives vote for this resolution? Some voted for it because they share Kirk’s views. However most representatives, if presented in public with the above list of Kirk’s views, would express indignation and distance themselves from some or all of these statements. The ninety-five Democrats who voted for the resolution would clearly do so, as would many of the Republicans. The resolution vote speaks to one of the most critical questions of the year.

Question: Why has Congress failed to exercise its obligation under the Constitution       to serve as a check on the executive branch’s overreach and abuse of power? 

Answer: Their decisions are first and foremost motivated by their political future.

Those who supported the resolution concluded that the vote would help more than hurt them. Their fear was that if they voted against it, the president and their other political opponents would use it against them. Given that most Americans will not know about the resolution – let alone read it – they assumed that their constituents would not hold them accountable. These representatives lack moral courage. They value their careers, along with the money, power, and prestige that comes from their position more than they value their integrity.

Express your outrage

            Find out how your representative voted. If they voted against the resolution, thank them. If they voted for it, let them know that you are outraged, that Charlie Kirk did not “elevate truth,” “foster understanding,” or work “tirelessly to promote unity," and use one or more of the examples above to illustrate your point. Our representatives need to know that we are aware of their votes, that they cannot take their constituents for granted and that we demand that they do better.