HR-8705-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 19 - 15.
Sponsored by Burgess Owens (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prohibit federal American History and Civics grant funds from being used for what the bill terms "discriminatory equity ideology" or "gender ideology," as those terms are defined in two executive orders (EO 14190 and EO 14168). It would also bar the Secretary of Education from giving grant priority to applicants based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status — whether based on the organization's identity, its staff or students, or its proposed activities.
Who benefits
Grant applicants whose programs focus on traditional or content-neutral civics and history instruction, who would no longer compete against applicants receiving priority for demographic or ideological criteria. Parents and students who prefer civics curricula that do not include content covered by the bill's definitions. Schools and organizations whose existing programs align with the bill's restrictions and would face less competition for grants. Taxpayers who prefer federal education funds be directed away from the defined content areas.
Who is hurt
Grant applicants — including school districts, universities, and nonprofits — whose programs incorporate diversity, equity, or gender-related content and currently receive or compete for these funds. Organizations that have historically received priority consideration based on serving underrepresented student populations. Students in schools that rely on these grants for civics programming that includes the restricted content. Teachers and curriculum developers who design programs incorporating the defined ideologies. LGBTQ+ students and students from immigrant families whose identities are explicitly excluded as grant-priority factors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal civics and history funds should promote a shared, fact-based understanding of American history and government rather than ideologically driven frameworks. They contend that "discriminatory equity ideology" and "gender ideology" — as defined by the referenced executive orders — inject contested political viewpoints into K-12 classrooms at taxpayer expense, undermining educational neutrality. They further argue that prohibiting demographic-based grant priority ensures the grant process is merit-based and consistent with the Equal Protection principles affirmed in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which held that race-conscious decision-making in federally funded institutions violates the Constitution.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's core definitions are drawn directly from executive orders rather than statutory text, creating a legally unstable and potentially overbroad standard that could suppress a wide range of legitimate historical and civic instruction — including teaching about the civil rights movement or gender history. They contend that barring grant priority based on the identities of students served could disadvantage schools in underserved communities that have historically had less access to quality civics education, and that this conflicts with ESEA's longstanding goal of addressing educational inequity. They also argue that incorporating executive order definitions into statute effectively delegates definitional authority to the executive branch, raising separation-of-powers concerns.
Constitutional context
The Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) permits Congress to attach conditions to federal education grants, subject to the five-part test in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), including that conditions must be unambiguous and not coercive. The bill's incorporation of executive order definitions to define prohibited content may raise First Amendment concerns about viewpoint-based restrictions on grant recipients' speech, an area where the Court has drawn distinctions between government speech and private speech in federally funded programs. Post-SFFA (2023), prohibiting race-based grant priority aligns with Equal Protection doctrine, though the application to grant administration rather than admissions is not yet directly settled.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to restrict the content and demographic criteria of executive branch grant-making; the Secretary of Education loses discretion over grant priorities, and courts retain authority to review whether the bill's content-based funding restrictions constitute impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
Historical precedent
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and subsequent ESEA reauthorizations have attached content and process conditions to federal education grants, but no prior statute has incorporated executive order definitions of ideological content as the basis for funding prohibitions.