H.RES. 719

H.RES. 719 AND THE AMERICA WE’RE BUILDING

In moments of grief, a nation chooses who it wants to be. This week, Congress is considering H.Res. 719, a resolution that condemns the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk and honors his life and legacy. Whatever our views of Mr. Kirk’s rhetoric and work, the nonnegotiable truth is this: political violence is an assault on democracy itself. We condemn it, full stop.

WHAT H.RES. 719 DOES

The resolution is symbolic, as House resolutions are, but symbolism matters. It speaks to our shared rejection of political violence and memorializes a life cut short. A publicly available copy of the introduced text is posted on Congress.gov.

THE CIVIC CONTEXT

Debate around H.Res. 719 has been tense. Some lawmakers have urged colleagues to avoid turning this moment into a partisan trap, emphasizing the importance of denouncing political violence no matter who is targeted. Others have voiced discomfort with honoring a figure whose commentary often demeaned marginalized communities. These debates are playing out in real time and reflect a deeper challenge: How do we mourn without mythologizing, condemn violence without canonizing its victim, and do both while safeguarding pluralism?

WHAT A 501(C)(3) CAN SAY—AND MUST SAY

Progress for All is a nonpartisan public charity. We do not endorse candidates or parties, and we take care with legislative commentary. But we can teach, uplift, and warn. So, we’ll say the quiet part aloud: The republic is strongest when we refuse dehumanization, especially in victory or in grief. The test is not whether we defend people we agree with; the test is whether we defend the democratic ground rules that let all of us argue, organize, and vote without fear.

PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD OUTLAST THIS NEWS CYCLE

• No to violence, yes to vigorous debate. A democracy worth keeping makes room for fierce ideas and forbids the fists that would settle them. That is the baseline H.Res. 719 purports to affirm.

• Dignity is indivisible. Political speech that targets entire communities—by race, faith, gender, sexual orientation, or immigration status—corrodes civic trust. Condemning violence is necessary; cultivating civic dignity is how we make that condemnation real, not rhetorical. (Several reports this week highlight both the resolution’s anti-violence language and the unease many feel about celebrating a polarizing figure. That tension is part of our civic homework.)

• Memory should widen the circle. When public institutions memorialize, they also model. In future moments like this, Congress can pair its stand against violence with language that affirms those who were demeaned in the public square—without litigating ideology. That choice teaches the next generation that disagreement is human, but dehumanization is not.

WHAT WE’RE COMMITTED TO (REGARDLESS OF THE FINAL VOTE)

• Nonviolence education. We will continue to resource schools, congregations, and civic groups with curricula that reduce political temperature and build skills for hard conversations across difference.

• Pluralism in practice. We convene programming that places people who profoundly disagree into structured, respectful dialogue—because democracy is the daily habit of sharing a country with strangers.

• Civic resilience. We support training that helps local leaders de-escalate online harassment and threats, protect election workers, and keep civic spaces open to all.

• A culture of radical dignity. In our publications, classrooms, and convenings, we will reflect a norm that treats every neighbor as a moral equal—especially when discourse gets hot.

A FORWARD LOOK

The Senate has already passed a companion tribute of its own; the House will chart its course in the hours and days ahead. The headlines will fade, but the deeper question remains: Will we, the people, choose a politics that makes room for every voice without menacing any life? That is the republic we are building—imperfectly, persistently, together.