House Passes It 285 — 98: Devastated Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Can't Believe It As She Rejects Results Outright
Washington, D.C. - June 8, 2026
House of Representatives Approves Resolution Condemning Socialism by 285-98 Vote
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution that denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States. The measure passed by a vote of 285 to 98, with support from all Republicans present and 86 Democrats.
Republican Rep. French Hill of Arkansas, the sponsor of the resolution, described the vote as a clear and direct statement.
“A yes vote on this resolution should be a relatively straightforward, easy decision. It simply states that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America,” Hill said.
The resolution comes as both parties prepare for the 2026 midterm elections and follows ongoing debates within the Democratic Party about the influence of progressive and socialist-leaning members. Several Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, voted in favor of the measure. Other Democrats, such as Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York, have sought to distinguish themselves from more radical positions during recent campaign cycles.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., supported the resolution and cited her family’s experience leaving Cuba under a socialist government. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice, voted against the resolution and expressed strong opposition to its passage.
Democratic Party Divisions and Broader Context
The vote reflects internal divisions within the Democratic caucus between members who favor more traditional approaches and those aligned with progressive or socialist policy priorities. Democratic candidates in upcoming races have faced questions about their stances on economic policy, government intervention, and the role of the state in addressing inequality.
The resolution also occurs against the backdrop of economic and policy developments during the current administration, including reported gains in domestic energy production and changes in border security measures. Supporters of the resolution argue that it reinforces commitment to free-market principles, individual liberties, and limited government.
Critics of the measure contend that broad condemnations of socialism can overlook legitimate policy debates about public services, economic regulation, and social safety nets. Some Democratic members have argued that certain government programs frequently labeled as socialist represent mainstream efforts to address public needs.
Broader Political Context
The House action follows primary challenges within the Democratic Party involving candidates associated with progressive organizations. One such contest involves Saikat Chakrabarti, co-founder of the Justice Democrats, who is running in the open seat previously held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. Chakrabarti’s campaign has criticized what he describes as establishment practices within the party.
With the midterms approaching, both parties are using economic and ideological issues to define their positions. The resolution does not carry the force of law but serves as an expression of congressional sentiment on a major policy question. Similar non-binding resolutions have historically been used to highlight differences between the parties on significant issues.
The outcome of the vote and the reactions from members across the political spectrum underscore the continued debate over the direction of economic policy in the United States. Additional discussion on these topics is expected in the months leading up to the November elections.
Continue reading
A powerful district attorney came to my house before dawn with a baseball bat and a sheriff carrying a fake warrant.
Daniel Brooks stepped through my broken doorway like a man who believed the law belonged to him.
Rain dripped from his suit.
A baseball bat hung from his right hand.
Behind him stood Sheriff Walker, broad shoulders filling the doorway, one palm resting near his belt as if intimidation were part of his uniform.
“Give me my son,” Daniel said.
Ethan shook so hard in my arms the blanket slipped from one shoulder.
I pulled it back around him and held him tighter against my cardigan.
His face was bruised.
One eye swollen.
Mud dried along his jaw where he had fallen running through the woods behind my house.
When Daniel’s voice hit the room, Ethan buried his face against me.
“Grandma,” he whispered. “Don’t let him take me.”
I felt the old part of myself wake fully.
Not the grandmother.
Not the widow.
The colonel.
The woman who had once sat in windowless rooms listening to men lie while entire operations depended on noticing which finger twitched first.
Daniel raised the bat slightly.
Sheriff Walker glanced at Ethan’s face.
For the first time, his confidence flickered.
Good.
He had not expected the boy to look that damaged under lamplight.
I kept my voice quiet.
“A warrant at three-thirty in the morning. You boys got sloppy.”
Daniel froze mid-step.
Sheriff Walker’s eyes moved to my covered hand beneath the knitting blanket.
A faint metallic click cut through the rain and police lights.
Daniel heard it.
His rage drained by a fraction.
“Evelyn,” he said, forcing calm. “You’re confused. Ethan ran away. I’m here to bring him home.”
Ethan made a small broken sound.
I looked at Daniel.
“No. You’re here because he saw the rug.”
Daniel’s mouth tightened.
Sheriff Walker stopped breathing for half a second.
That was enough.
I rose halfway from my chair with Ethan still tucked against one side of me.
My hidden hand stayed beneath the blanket.
“Come closer, Daniel.”
He did not.
For the first time since entering my house, the district attorney understood he was not standing in front of an old woman.
He was standing inside a trap he had helped build with his own arrogance.
