Passed
421 Yea1 Nay11 Not voting2/3 required
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 calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and counter antisemitism. It calls on the executive branch and state and local leaders to educate the public about Jewish American contributions to U.S. history and culture. It also expresses the House's commitment to ensuring the safety, security, and dignity of Jewish Americans in workplaces, campuses, synagogues, and homes. As a House resolution (H. Res.), it does not carry the force of law and creates no binding legal obligations.
Who benefits
Jewish Americans, who may benefit from increased public awareness and official condemnation of antisemitism. Jewish college students, who the resolution specifically references as experiencing high rates of antisemitism on campuses. Jewish institutions such as synagogues and community organizations that may gain visibility and symbolic federal support. Civil society organizations focused on combating hate and discrimination more broadly.
Who is hurt
The resolution creates no direct legal burdens on any group. Critics who believe the resolution's framing or the definition of antisemitism used in related policy contexts is too broad may argue it could indirectly chill protected speech or political criticism. No group faces a direct material harm from this non-binding resolution.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that antisemitism in the United States has reached measurable record highs since October 7, 2023, citing American Jewish Committee data showing 77% of American Jews feel less safe and Hillel International data showing 83% of Jewish college students have experienced or witnessed antisemitism. They contend that official condemnation by elected officials and public education about Jewish American contributions are proven, non-coercive tools for reducing prejudice and that the House has a responsibility to speak clearly against hate targeting any community.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a non-binding resolution without enforcement mechanisms or funding commitments is largely symbolic and does little to materially address the documented rise in antisemitic incidents. They contend that the resolution's call on the executive branch and civil society to "educate the public" raises questions about government involvement in shaping public discourse, and that without clear definitional boundaries, similar resolutions could be used as political precedent to pressure speech that some consider antisemitic but others consider protected political expression.
Passed