HRES-1216-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Young Kim (R-CA)
What it does
This resolution would formally express the House of Representatives' condemnation of the April 25, 2026, shooting at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. It would commend the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies that responded to the attack, urge all citizens and public figures to reject rhetoric that encourages political violence, and call on Congress to pass a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that includes robust funding for the Secret Service.
Who benefits
Secret Service agents and other law enforcement personnel who receive formal congressional recognition. The Secret Service institutionally, which would benefit from the resolution's call for increased DHS funding. Attendees of future high-profile public events who may benefit from heightened security. Members of the press who attend events like the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Broadly, any public figure or citizen who benefits from a congressional statement against political violence.
Who is hurt
This is a non-binding resolution with no direct regulatory or fiscal effect, so no group is directly harmed. Indirectly, critics who believe the resolution's framing is politically selective — for example, by focusing on one specific incident — may argue it omits broader condemnations of political violence across the political spectrum. There are no direct cost-bearers, though the resolution's call for DHS funding could, if acted upon, affect budget priorities elsewhere.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Congress has a responsibility to speak clearly and unanimously against politically motivated violence, particularly when it targets the nation's elected leadership. They contend that the April 25 attack — the alleged third assassination attempt against a sitting president — represents a dangerous escalation that demands a formal legislative response, and that commending the law enforcement officers who intervened honors their bravery and reinforces the importance of adequate Secret Service funding.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that while condemning political violence is uncontroversial, the resolution's specific framing — centering one incident and one set of political targets — may be seen as selectively applying a principle that should be stated more broadly and evenhandedly. They contend that a resolution focused on a single event tied to one administration risks being used for partisan purposes rather than serving as a genuine, durable statement against all forms of political violence regardless of the target's political affiliation.