Senate Resolution Dictates National Anthem Must Be Performed Only 'As Written, In English'

This concurrent resolution, which is essentially Congress making a formal statement of opinion, expresses the “sense of the Senate” that any public performance of “The Star-Spangled Banner” must adhere strictly to the original English lyrics written by Francis Scott Key. The core message is that sticking to the original text honors the history and intent behind the anthem, ensuring a shared understanding of the national symbol.

The 'Sense of the Senate' and Your Spotify Playlist

Unlike a bill that becomes law and creates a new rule or budget, this is a non-binding resolution. It won't land anyone in jail for singing a slightly different version at a karaoke bar or impose fines on a stadium for letting an artist riff a little. However, resolutions act as a strong political signal, defining what members of Congress view as the accepted norm for public cultural expression. This is Congress using its platform to essentially tell event organizers and performers how they think the anthem should be done.

Who Gets to Sing the Anthem?

The resolution’s focus is on maintaining the “historical and cultural meaning” by demanding adherence to the English text. This is where the real-world friction starts. In recent years, we’ve seen high-profile performances that include non-English verses (like Spanish or Native American languages) or artistic interpretations aimed at inclusivity or making a political point. This resolution is a clear pushback against that kind of artistic expression, suggesting that tradition trumps interpretation in public forums.

For an artist or a community group that might want to perform the anthem in Spanish at a local festival to include non-English speaking attendees, this resolution creates pressure. While it can’t legally ban that performance, it gives critics a powerful political statement from the Senate to leverage against event organizers, potentially chilling performances that deviate from the prescribed English text. It attempts to define acceptable public expression under the guise of unity, but in practice, it limits how people can relate to a national symbol.

The Cost of Tradition vs. Inclusivity

The benefit, according to the resolution’s text, is reinforcing the historical integrity of the anthem and fostering national unity through tradition. The challenge, however, is that unity often requires evolution and inclusion. By mandating a specific language and text, the Senate risks alienating groups who use alternative performances to express their own patriotism and belonging. It’s a classic tension: using a historical text to define unity, but potentially creating division by restricting how modern, diverse Americans can engage with that text.