SRES-363-119
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5181; text: CR S5211)
Sponsored by Eric Schmitt (R-MO)
What it does
This is a Senate resolution — a formal statement of the Senate's position that does not carry the force of law. It marks the one-year anniversary of the July 13, 2024 attempted assassination of President Donald J. Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. The resolution condemns multiple attempts against the President's life, condemns those who incite violence against political officials, and honors the victims of the shooting. It was passed by unanimous consent, meaning no senator objected.
Who benefits
Victims of the Butler, Pennsylvania shooting and their families, who receive formal congressional recognition. President Donald J. Trump, who is honored and whose security concerns are formally acknowledged. Political officials broadly, who benefit from a congressional statement condemning incitement of violence against them. Advocates for political civility and reduced political violence who view formal condemnations as meaningful public statements.
Who is hurt
This resolution carries no legal force and imposes no mandates, penalties, or spending. No specific group is directly and materially harmed by its passage. Some critics of symbolic resolutions may argue that congressional floor time spent on non-binding measures has an opportunity cost, displacing time that could be used on binding legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Congress has a responsibility to formally and solemnly mark acts of political violence against the nation's leaders, regardless of party. They contend that unanimous condemnation of assassination attempts sends a clear, bipartisan signal that political violence is unacceptable in a democratic society. Honoring the victims — including Corey Comperatore, who was killed, and others wounded — gives their sacrifice official recognition. Supporters also argue that condemning those who incite violence against political officials reinforces norms of civil discourse that protect all elected leaders across the political spectrum.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that while condemning political violence is appropriate, a resolution focused on a single political figure risks being used for partisan purposes rather than serving as a genuinely universal statement against all political violence. They contend that a more durable and meaningful congressional response would be binding legislation — such as enhanced security funding or anti-incitement measures — rather than a non-binding symbolic statement. Some may also argue that the resolution's framing, by focusing exclusively on one party's leader, does not equally address threats and acts of violence directed at political officials across the full political spectrum.