This resolution directs the House to censure Representative Andrew Ogles and to remove him from the House Committee on Homeland Security following a series of public statements the resolution characterizes as Islamophobic and discriminatory. It asks that the Member present himself in the House well for a public pronouncement of censure and that the Speaker read the resolution aloud.
The measure is an internal, non‑statutory House action aimed at enforcing chamber norms and altering committee composition. It matters because it combines a formal, public rebuke with the practical consequence of stripping a member from a committee whose subject matter — homeland security — the resolution says is incompatible with the conduct at issue.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution requires the House to adopt a formal censure of Representative Ogles, to have him appear in the well for the pronouncement, and to have the Speaker publicly read the resolution. It also removes him by name from the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are Representative Ogles, the House Committee on Homeland Security (its roster and oversight workload), and the House’s enforcement machinery (notably the Committee on Ethics, which received the referral). Indirectly affected are Muslim elected officials and communities cited in the resolution’s findings, and House colleagues who conduct homeland security oversight.
Why It Matters
The resolution pairs symbolic discipline (censure) with a concrete reallocation of committee authority, setting a procedural precedent for disciplining members whose speech is framed as impairing fitness for committee service. For compliance officers and committee staff, it signals how reputational and membership penalties can be coupled in House remedies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.Res.1113 is a short, two‑part House resolution that does two discrete things. First, it directs the House to censure Representative Andrew Ogles; the text includes procedural language requiring the Member to present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement and requiring the Speaker to read the resolution publicly.
Second, it removes Mr. Ogles by name from the standing Committee on Homeland Security.
The preamble (the "Whereas" clauses) catalogs specific statements attributed to Representative Ogles — including quoted social media posts and podcast remarks — and links those statements to a claim that his continued membership on the Homeland Security committee raises questions about his fitness to serve in that role. The resolution, as drafted, implements the chamber’s judgment by two parallel actions: a ceremonial rebuke and an immediate change to committee membership.Practically, passage of the resolution would not create a statutory prohibition or criminal penalty; instead, it would change internal House records and committee rosters.
The removal of a named member from a standing committee has immediate operational impacts — loss of that member’s vote, staff resources tied to that assignment, and any subcommittee positions. The resolution does not include language about appointing a replacement or how the vacated slot would be filled; those details remain governed by House rules and party assignment processes.The bill was introduced and referred to the Committee on Ethics, reflecting the chamber’s use of both ethics oversight and membership remedies when addressing allegations about a Member’s public conduct.
Because H.Res.1113 is a chamber resolution, its effects are internal to House organization and precedent rather than changes to federal law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Sponsor and referral: Representative Shri Thanedar introduced H.Res.1113 on March 12, 2026, and the resolution was referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
Quotations cited: The resolution quotes specific statements attributed to Representative Ogles (including the phrases “Muslims don’t belong in American society” and “pluralism is a lie” and a podcast remark about Muslims “breeding their way through our society”) as the factual basis for discipline.
Censure mechanics: The text requires Representative Ogles to present himself in the House well for the pronouncement and directs that the Speaker publicly read the resolution as the form of censure.
Committee removal: Section 2 removes Mr. Ogles, by name, from the standing Committee on Homeland Security; the text does not specify a replacement or the mechanics for refilling that committee seat.
Internal, not statutory: H.Res.1113 is an internal House resolution affecting chamber discipline and committee membership; it does not create criminal penalties or amend federal statutory law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and stated reasons for discipline
The preamble lists several specific public statements and patterns of conduct attributed to Representative Ogles, including quotes from social posts and a podcast appearance, and frames those statements as Islamophobic, racist, and antithetical to the duties of a Member of Congress. These findings supply the factual predicate the resolution uses to justify both the censure and the committee removal, and they make explicit the connection the sponsor draws between speech and fitness for a particular committee assignment.
Censure procedure and public pronouncement
Section 1 orders that Representative Ogles be censured and specifies two procedural elements: he is to present himself in the well of the House for that pronouncement, and the Speaker is to publicly read the resolution. That combination makes the disciplinary action both personal (the Member must appear) and public (the formal record and reading). The text stops short of prescribing additional sanctions — censure here is the formal rebuke and public record of the House’s disapproval.
Removal from the House Committee on Homeland Security
Section 2 removes Mr. Ogles, by name, from the standing Committee on Homeland Security. The provision is explicit and narrow: it takes a specific committee seat away without addressing how or when the seat will be reassigned. Under ordinary House practice, replacement or reallocation of the seat would fall to party leadership and be subject to internal assignment rules, but the resolution itself only effects the removal.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Muslim elected officials and Muslim communities — the resolution publicly acknowledges and condemns anti‑Muslim statements, providing an institutional rebuke that supporters will view as recognition of harm and a deterrent against similar rhetoric.
- House members concerned with committee integrity — colleagues who argue that particular committee assignments require impartiality or absence of discriminatory predispositions gain a tool to argue for membership changes tied to conduct.
- Supporters of congressional norms and pluralism — the formal censure and public reading function as a visible affirmation of the House’s stated commitment to religious freedom and non‑discrimination.
Who Bears the Cost
- Representative Andrew Ogles — immediate reputational damage, loss of committee floor time, staff support, and influence on homeland security oversight that stems from removal from the committee roster.
- House Committee on Homeland Security and its staff — short‑term disruption from adjusting membership, reassigning subcommittee responsibilities, and redistributing oversight workloads tied to the removed member.
- House leadership and the Committee on Ethics — additional administrative and political burden to process the referral, manage the removal’s fallout, and address follow‑on questions about replacements and precedent.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enforcing institutional norms — protecting minority communities and preserving the integrity of sensitive committee work — and preserving members’ latitude for controversial speech; a measure that both publicly shames and removes a member solves for immediate accountability but risks politicizing committee assignments and creating an unstable, case‑by‑case disciplinary standard.
The resolution blends symbolic and practical remedies but leaves several operational questions unanswered. It mandates public censure and names a committee removal, yet it does not set out how or when the vacated committee seat will be filled.
That gap shifts the practical consequence of removal to internal party and leadership processes, which can produce uneven outcomes depending on majority control and inter‑party bargaining. In short, the resolution accomplishes an immediate statement of disapproval and a roster change while deferring the mechanics of replacement.
There is also a trade‑off between disciplinary clarity and free‑speech concerns. The House routinely disciplines members for conduct deemed incompatible with membership, but the resolution’s heavy reliance on public statements raises predictable questions about where the chamber draws the line between protected political expression and conduct warranting formal censure or removal from committee assignments.
The text provides factual allegations but no standards for future cases, creating scope‑of‑application uncertainty that could invite selective enforcement or politicized use of committee stripping as a disciplinary tool.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.