This resolution expresses the sense of the House that the Ukrainian famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor, constitutes genocide and should be remembered as part of repressive Soviet policies toward Ukraine. It recounts actions by the Stalin-era Soviet government—including sealing borders, confiscating grain, and forcing collectivization—that led to mass starvation.
The text also condemns the Soviet regime’s human rights abuses, calls for broad dissemination of information about the Holodomor to increase understanding, and condemns Vladimir Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine while affirming support for a lasting peace and deterrence of aggression.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expresses the sense of the House that the Holodomor was genocide and designates remembrance as a policy focus. It includes condemnations of past repressions and calls for information dissemination to educate the public.
Who It Affects
Directly relevant to Ukrainian communities in the United States and abroad, foreign affairs policymakers, and Ukrainian diaspora organizations; informs diplomatic messaging.
Why It Matters
Establishes a formal U.S. stance that can shape public discourse, allied messaging, and policy conversations about Russia and Ukraine without creating new legal obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The measure is a non-binding expression of the House’s view, not a statute with enforceable requirements. It states that the Holodomor—the Ukrainian famine of 1932–1933—was genocide and should be remembered as part of the Soviet Union’s repressive policies against Ukraine.
The resolution recounts historical actions by the Soviet government, including sealing Ukraine’s borders to prevent escape and to block international food aid, confiscating grain, and forcing collectivization that decimated rural populations. These passages frame the Holodomor as a deliberate policy designed to crush Ukrainian resistance and culture.
Beyond recognition, the bill condemns the Soviet regime’s human rights violations and calls for broader dissemination of information about the Holodomor to deepen public understanding, both in the United States and worldwide. It also condemns Vladimir Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine and his rejection of Ukrainian nationhood, linking historical atrocity to current geopolitical tensions.
Finally, the resolution expresses strong support for efforts to pursue a lasting peace in Ukraine and to deter future Russian aggression. The document is intended to guide rhetoric and diplomacy rather than authorize new funding or statutes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution recognizes the Holodomor as genocide.
It notes Stalin-era actions—border sealing, grain confiscation, and forced collectivization—that contributed to famine.
It calls for disseminating information about the Holodomor to increase understanding.
It condemns Putin’s war and denial of Ukrainian nationhood.
It expresses support for a path to lasting peace in Ukraine and deterrence of Russian aggression.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Genocide recognition of Holodomor
Section 1 states the sense of the House that the Ukrainian famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor, constitutes genocide. This clause frames the historical event within a genocidal lens and establishes the core non-binding position of the resolution.
Remembrance and sympathy for victims
Section 2 memorializes the victims, expresses sympathy for survivors and families, and reinforces the morally charged memory of the atrocity as part of future remembrance and education efforts.
Condemnation of Soviet repression
Section 3 condemns the broad pattern of human rights violations by the Soviet regime against the Ukrainian people, including starvation, repression, and persecution, tying past crimes to the historical record the resolution seeks to affirm.
Dissemination and education
Section 4 encourages the dissemination of information about the Holodomor to broaden understanding of the event and to counter historical denial by the Kremlin, creating a policy-facing emphasis on public education.
Condemnation of Putin’s war and denial
Section 5 condemns Vladimir Putin’s ongoing military actions in Ukraine and his public denial of the existence of a Ukrainian people and sovereign state, linking the historical atrocity to current geopolitical behavior.
Support for peace and deterrence
Section 6 states strong support for efforts to advance a lasting peace in Ukraine and to deter future Russian aggression, signaling policy posture without prescribing enforcement actions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs 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
- Ukrainian American communities and cultural organizations gain formal acknowledgement and a clear statement of remembrance that supports advocacy and education.
- Ukrainian government and diaspora networks benefit from a reinforced diplomatic and cultural symbol that can aid diplomacy and outreach.
- U.S. foreign policy professionals and allied policymakers use the resolution to frame messaging and inform discussions with partners and allies.
- Human rights researchers and genocide scholars have a formal historical anchor for education and advocacy efforts.
- U.S. allies that emphasize democratic values may align this recognition with broader support for Ukraine.
- Ukrainian historians and educators can reference the resolution in curricula and public discourse.
Who Bears the Cost
- Russia and its state-aligned media may oppose or push back against the genocide framing, affecting international optics.
- Some U.S. policymakers might face political scrutiny from constituencies wary of aggressive posture toward Russia.
- State Department and diplomatic offices may incur additional messaging responsibilities to reflect the resolution in public diplomacy.
- Think tanks and advocacy groups with differing views on Russia policy could reallocate resources to respond to the resolution.
- Domestic actors who oppose war-related rhetoric could perceive the resolution as pulling foreign policy in a particular direction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Symbolic recognition versus concrete policy action: the bill seeks to establish a moral and diplomatic stance without creating enforceable obligations, risking expectations that symbolic gestures will drive substantive policy.
The bill’s value is largely symbolic, designed to signal a moral and historical stance rather than create new policy obligations. Its efficacy depends on how policymakers translate recognition into subsequent action—whether through diplomacy, education, or alliance-building.
The risk is that symbolic gestures may outpace concrete policy measures, potentially leading to expectations that are not met by statutory or budgetary mechanisms. The resolution also assumes broad consensus on the historical interpretation, which could be contested by those who dispute the characterization of the Holodomor as genocide or who weigh it against alternative historical narratives.
CoreTension: The central dilemma is balancing a clear moral condemnation and historical remembrance with the restraint of not imposing new legal duties or funding, while still influencing diplomatic and public discourse in a way that could shape future policy toward Russia and Ukraine.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.