HRES-352-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
What it does
This resolution would call on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and actively counter acts of antisemitism. It would also urge those leaders to educate the public about the contributions of the Jewish American community. As a House resolution, it expresses the sense of the House but does not carry the force of law, create new programs, or impose any legal obligations.
Who benefits
Jewish Americans, who may benefit from increased public awareness and official condemnation of antisemitism. Communities and institutions that experience antisemitic incidents and would benefit from stronger civic responses. Civil society organizations focused on combating hate and promoting interfaith understanding. Educators and historians who focus on Jewish American history and contributions.
Who is hurt
This resolution creates no legal mandates, so there are no direct costs or burdens imposed on any group. Indirectly, some civil liberties advocates may object to government-directed speech norms, even in non-binding form. Some critics of specific definitions of antisemitism (such as the IHRA definition) may argue that broad condemnation language could be used to chill political speech, though the resolution does not adopt any specific definition.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that antisemitic incidents in the United States have risen sharply in recent years — the Anti-Defamation League reported a record 10,000+ incidents in 2023 — and that official condemnation from elected and civic leaders sends a necessary public signal. They contend that non-binding resolutions play a meaningful role in setting civic norms, encouraging community leaders to speak out, and affirming the dignity of a targeted community without imposing any legal burden on anyone.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that symbolic resolutions without enforcement mechanisms or funding commitments do little to address the material causes of antisemitism and may serve primarily as political messaging rather than substantive policy. They contend that congressional attention and floor time would be better directed toward enforceable civil rights protections or dedicated funding for security at Jewish institutions, pointing to the existing but underfunded Nonprofit Security Grant Program as an example of where concrete action is needed.