Get started free →
HRES 1334 119th Congress · House

House Resolution Reaffirming “One Nation Under God”

Advocate

Official title: Reaffirming the Nation's commitment to one Nation Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

This House resolution reaffirms Congress’s support for the phrase “one Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a symbolic measure that speaks to the meaning and public recognition of the pledge rather than creating a new program, benefit, or spending item. The resolution primarily affects how the House expresses its view on civic tradition, religion in public life, and national identity. Because it is a resolution, its practical effect is political and declaratory rather than regulatory.

  • Reaffirms the phrase “one Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  • Introduced in the House and sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • Sponsored by Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI).
  • Has no cosponsors.
  • Does not create a new program, benefit, or funding stream.
Public Relevance 10 / 100
Niche Narrow / procedural Broad

For the general public, this resolution would not change taxes, benefits, or eligibility for any federal program. Its effect would be symbolic, reinforcing a particular view of the Pledge of Allegiance and the role of religion in civic life, which may matter most to students, educators, faith communities, and civil-liberties advocates.

See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysis
FOR
  • Religious Americans Supporters may view the resolution as a defense of the country’s religious heritage and a recognition that faith has long played a role in public civic life. They argue that the phrase reflects a historical tradition rather than a government-imposed religion.
  • Conservative civic-tradition advocates This group is likely to say the resolution helps preserve a familiar national symbol and pushes back against efforts to remove religious language from public institutions. They see the pledge as a unifying statement that should remain unchanged.
  • Some veterans and patriotic organizations They may argue that reaffirming the phrase honors the civic rituals many Americans grew up with and reinforces respect for national symbols. In their view, the resolution strengthens shared identity without changing anyone’s private beliefs.
AGAINST
  • Secular Americans Opponents may argue that Congress should not endorse religious language in an official civic pledge because it can make nonreligious citizens feel excluded. They see the resolution as unnecessary government involvement in matters of faith.
  • Civil-liberties advocates This group may contend that reaffirming the phrase blurs the line between government and religion and invites further official religious messaging. They often prefer a strictly neutral public sphere where the state does not appear to favor belief over nonbelief.
  • Some educators and school administrators They may worry that renewed congressional attention to the pledge could intensify disputes in classrooms and local communities. Even without changing the law, the resolution can fuel controversy over how students participate in patriotic exercises.
  • “Reaffirming the Nation's commitment to one Nation Under God”

    This language signals congressional support for keeping the religious phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. In real-world terms, it is a statement of values rather than a mandate that changes how the pledge is recited.

  • “the Pledge of Allegiance”

    The resolution centers on a civic ritual used in schools and public settings across the country. That makes the measure relevant to students, teachers, and public institutions that regularly use the pledge.

  • “one Nation Under God”

    This is the specific phrase at the heart of the debate. The practical consequence is not a legal change, but a public endorsement of religious language in a national symbol.

  • “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

    The resolution has been sent to the committee that handles constitutional and legal questions. That means it enters the normal House review process before any further action could occur.

June 3, 2026

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Take Action

Get more from BillBoard

Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.

Ask AI about this bill

Data sourced from api.congress.gov.

Free to use · No credit card

Understand every bill.
Make your voice count.

BillBoard turns dense U.S. legislation into plain-English summaries, helps you take a stance, and connects you to your representatives — in seconds.