Over 100 House Democrats just voted against condemning a suspected terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, leaving many to wonder if partisan games trump public safety.
The resolution, spearheaded by Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., passed 280-113, with 75 Democrats joining Republicans in support, while six lawmakers opted for the fence-sitting “present” vote. As reported by Fox News, the measure specifically addressed a violent incident targeting pro-Israel activists protesting Hamas’ hostage-holding in Gaza.
On June 1, 2025, an attack in Boulder injured multiple individuals, with federal charges now filed against Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national accused of attempting to set fire to peaceful demonstrators. Soliman, who allegedly overstayed both a tourist visa and subsequent work authorization, has become a focal point in the debate over immigration enforcement. The Trump administration has promised his deportation, along with his family, as a direct response.
Evans’ resolution didn’t just condemn the attack—it took a sharp jab at sanctuary jurisdictions often at odds with federal immigration authorities, highlighting the risks of lax visa enforcement. It pointedly noted Soliman’s case as evidence of the dangers posed by those who fail to comply with visa terms. Turns out, ignoring the fine print can have explosive consequences.
The resolution also emphasized the importance of seamless communication between local, state, and federal law enforcement to prevent such terrorist acts. It expressed appreciation for officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, who safeguard the nation. This stance comes as Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles and Nashville have openly criticized the Trump administration’s tough ICE policies.
Speaking of criticism, the Trump administration’s response to anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles—deploying National Guard troops to quell unrest—has drawn sharp rebukes from Democratic officials. It’s almost as if some leaders prefer photo ops over protecting communities. But let’s keep the focus on policy, not posturing.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., didn’t mince words, dismissing Evans’ resolution as politically motivated rather than a genuine effort to combat antisemitism. “Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America,” Jeffries told reporters, even calling Evans “a joke.”
Well, Evans wasn’t about to let that slide, firing back on X with a reminder of his service in the Middle East, as a Colorado cop, and now as a congressman. He argued that such dismissive attitudes from Democratic leadership are precisely why antisemitism lingers unresolved. It’s hard not to nod along when he calls out the left for lacking serious solutions.
Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who is Jewish, also took issue with the resolution, accusing Evans of using antisemitism as a political pawn. “We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns,” Goldman declared during the debate. While his frustration is understandable, one wonders if rejecting a condemnation of violence is the best way to make that point.
Contrast this with a separate bill led by Reps. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., and Joe Neguse, D-Colo., which broadly condemned the surge in antisemitic attacks across the U.S. That measure sailed through with unanimous 400-0 support, with only two lawmakers—Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.—voting “present.”
Van Drew defended Evans’ resolution despite its narrower focus, arguing it raised valid concerns about unauthorized migration’s broader impact on public safety. He referenced tragic cases like Laken Riley’s to underline the human cost of unchecked borders, a point that resonates when lives are on the line. It’s a tough conversation, but dodging it won’t save anyone.
Greene, explaining her “present” vote on the bipartisan bill, took to X to critique Congress’ selective focus on antisemitic hate crimes over other forms of violence. She noted that while such crimes are deplorable, countless Americans of all backgrounds face harm daily without similar legislative attention. It’s a fair jab at a Congress that is often more reactive than proactive.
Evans’ resolution also affirmed that open dialogue between law enforcement at all levels is crucial for preventing future attacks, a principle that should be common sense. Yet, with over 100 Democrats voting no, one has to ask if ideological blinders are obscuring the bigger picture. Public safety isn’t a game of red versus blue.
The divide over this resolution reflects a deeper tension between addressing immediate acts of violence and tackling systemic issues like immigration policy. While the bipartisan bill shows unity is possible on condemning hate, Evans’ measure forces a harder look at enforcement failures. Ignoring that link feels like treating symptoms while skipping the diagnosis.
At the end of the day, the Boulder attack isn’t just a headline—it’s a wake-up call. Both sides have valid points, but dismissing a condemnation of violence over political wording risks alienating those who just want to feel safe. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail before the next tragedy forces the issue again.
