ANTI-AMERICAN’: Rep. Mikie Sherrill called Charlie Kirk a Christian nationalist who sought to “roll back the rights of women and Black people” after the House honored him.

In the wake of the recent violence that claimed the life of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution on September 19, 2025, honoring his memory and condemning political violence. The measure was carried overwhelmingly — 310 votes in favor, with 58 opposing and 38 members voting “present.”

While many viewed the resolution as a moment for bipartisan unity, the vote exposed deep rifts, especially among Democrats. Among those expressing dissent was Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D‑NJ), who, while voting yes, sharply criticized the resolution’s laudatory language about Kirk. Sherrill described Kirk as a “Christian nationalist” who had sought to “roll back the rights of women and Black people” — positions she said are fundamentally opposed to the values she upholds.

Sherrill acknowledged the tragic nature of Kirk’s assassination, expressing sympathy for his family and condemning the act of violence. But she emphasized that her support for the resolution did not mean an endorsement of all of Kirk’s views, many of which she described as “vile” and deeply troubling. She noted that constitutional protections for free speech extend even to voices she vehemently disagreed with.

Her critique echoes that of other Democrats who voted for the resolution: many voiced discomfort with what they perceived as overly celebratory language, especially regarding an individual whose public record included divisive rhetoric on race, gender, and civil rights issues.

The backlash highlighted the balancing act facing many in Congress: condemning political violence is almost universally accepted, but honoring the legacy of a polarizing figure forces lawmakers to confront whether they are also honoring the beliefs and rhetoric that figure advanced. For Sherrill, the resolution’s language veered too far toward praise without sufficiently acknowledging those concerns.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R‑LA), who introduced the resolution, defended it as non‑partisan and centered on condemning violence rather than solidifying ideological divides. He argued that the resolution was not meant to sanctify all of Kirk’s viewpoints, but to affirm the principle that political differences should not end in bloodshed.

As the nation continues to wrestle with political polarization and the ever‑present threat of violence, the Kirk resolution serves as a flashpoint. It challenges both political leaders and the public to distinguish between honoring the life lost and approving of the convictions held — and to consider how symbolic gestures intersect with moral accountability.