S-1244-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would create a federal Education Savings Account (ESA) program for children of active-duty military service members. The Department of Education would deposit $6,000 per child per year (adjusted annually for inflation) into individual accounts that parents could use to pay for a wide range of educational expenses — including private school tuition, tutoring, homeschool materials, therapy services, technology, and college costs. Parents must agree not to enroll their child full-time in a public school while participating, and must have had their child enrolled in a public school for at least 100 consecutive days before first applying. The bill authorizes $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2026, with inflation-indexed increases in subsequent years.
Who benefits
Children of active-duty military service members (estimated at roughly 1 million school-age dependents), particularly those whose families relocate frequently and face disrupted schooling. Enlisted service members' families are prioritized in the lottery system over officer families. Private schools, tutoring companies, curriculum providers, educational therapists, and other approved vendors who would receive new federal dollars. Families of children with disabilities, who may use funds through age 26. Homeschooling families who gain access to federal funding for materials and services. Siblings of existing account holders, who receive lottery priority.
Who is hurt
Public schools near military installations, which could lose enrollment and associated per-pupil funding when military families opt out. Teachers' unions and public school employees who may see reduced demand. National Guard families, who are explicitly excluded from eligibility. Military families who cannot meet the 100-day prior public school enrollment requirement (e.g., those already homeschooling). Taxpayers broadly, through the $1.2 billion annual authorization. Private and religious schools that accept funds but face potential future regulatory creep, despite the bill's non-control provisions. Children of commissioned officers, who receive the lowest lottery priority.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that active-duty military families face unique educational hardships — the average military child attends six to nine schools before graduating — and that a portable, flexible account directly addresses the disruption caused by frequent relocations. They contend that $6,000 per child gives families genuine choice among providers best suited to their child's needs, and that the program's explicit inclusion of religious schools aligns with the Supreme Court's holdings in Espinoza v. Montana (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022), which found that excluding religious schools from public benefit programs violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that diverting $1.2 billion annually from public education funding undermines schools that serve the majority of military children, including those whose parents do not opt into the ESA program. They contend that the bill's broad prohibition on federal or state oversight of participating providers — including religious schools — creates accountability gaps, since providers need only demonstrate state licensure to receive federal funds with minimal curriculum or outcome requirements. Critics also argue that the 100-day prior public school enrollment requirement creates an arbitrary barrier that disadvantages families already using private or home education options.
Constitutional context
The bill uses Congress's Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) to fund a school-choice program. The explicit prohibition on excluding religious providers directly tracks the Supreme Court's rulings in Espinoza v. Montana (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022), which held that excluding religious schools from scholarship programs based on religious status or use violates the Free Exercise Clause. The bill's "assistance to the child, not the provider" framing (§7012A(p)(4)) is a standard Establishment Clause insulation mechanism. The Tenth Amendment is addressed by the bill's explicit non-control provisions, which bar federal or state supervision of participating private and home education providers.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Secretary of Education) gains significant new administrative authority to approve providers, manage accounts, conduct audits, and set transfer schedules; checks include congressional appropriations control, the bill's explicit 5% administrative cost cap, mandatory expense reporting by parents, fraud reporting mechanisms, surety bond requirements for large providers, and judicial review with the burden of proof placed on the Department in any challenge to provider requirements.
Historical precedent
The Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) system and the existing Impact Aid program (also in Title VII of ESEA) have long provided federal education support to military families, but no prior federal law has created portable ESAs specifically for military dependents attending non-public schools.