CRT Act

Bill Number

H.R. 2276

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Education

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-03-21: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.

Last Updated

2026-03-16T19:12:00Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The legislation aims to prevent federal funding from supporting educational institutions that promote specific race-based theories, often associated with critical race theory (CRT), or compel beliefs that violate anti-discrimination laws. It seeks to ensure that federal money does not endorse views portraying race as a determinant of inherent superiority, national racism, or collective racial guilt.

Key Provisions

• Funding Prohibition for K-12 Schools: States or local educational agencies cannot allocate federal funds to elementary or secondary schools that promote the specified race-based theories or force teachers/students to affirm beliefs breaching Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funds).
• Funding Prohibition for Higher Education: Federal funds cannot go to colleges or universities engaging in the same prohibited activities.
• Defined Race-Based Theories: Six specific ideas are targeted:
• Claiming any race is inherently superior or inferior to another.
• Asserting the United States is fundamentally racist.
• Declaring the Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution as fundamentally racist.
• Judging an individual's moral character by their race.
• Stating individuals are inherently racist or oppressive due to their race (consciously or not).
• Holding individuals responsible for actions of others of the same race.
• Definition of "Promote": Includes incorporating these theories into curricula or trainings in ways suggesting official endorsement; hiring speakers or trainers to advocate them; requiring students to profess belief in them; or segregating people by race in educational settings.
• Rules of Construction (Exceptions):
• Does not limit free speech outside school environments.
• Allows access to related materials for personal research or study.
• Permits discussing or assigning these theories in educational contexts if the school clearly indicates no sponsorship or endorsement.
• Definitions: Clarifies terms like "covered school" (K-12 or higher education), "promote," and references standard definitions from existing education laws.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces new eligibility criteria for federal education funding, tying it directly to avoidance of specific ideological content, which was not previously codified at the federal level for these theories.
• Builds on Title VI by explicitly linking funding cuts to compelled affirmations of race-based beliefs, potentially expanding enforcement mechanisms for discrimination claims in education.
• No direct amendments to prior laws, but it conditions funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and Higher Education Act of 1965 on compliance.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Department of Education and other federal funders must monitor and withhold funds from non-compliant schools, increasing administrative oversight and potential audits.
• On Citizens: Students and teachers in affected schools may face curriculum changes or loss of resources; parents and communities could see shifts in educational approaches to retain funding.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it may influence U.S. perceptions abroad regarding domestic education policies on race and history.
• Broader effects include possible funding shortfalls for public schools reliant on federal aid (about 8-10% of K-12 budgets), prompting states to adjust budgets or curricula.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Educational Institutions: K-12 schools, local/state education agencies, and universities dependent on federal grants/loans.
• Educators and Students: Teachers facing restrictions on teaching methods; students potentially limited in exposure to certain historical or social analyses.
• Federal and State Governments: Agencies administering funds (e.g., Department of Education) and state officials managing allocations.
• Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on civil rights, education equity, or conservative values, who may support or challenge enforcement.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Could face challenges under the First Amendment (free speech) for restricting academic discourse, though exceptions aim to protect non-endorsed discussions; enforcement relies on proving "promotion," which may lead to subjective interpretations and lawsuits.
• Constitutional: Raises questions about federal overreach into state/local education (Tenth Amendment), as funding conditions might be seen as coercive; ties to Title VI could strengthen anti-discrimination efforts but risk broadening its scope.
• Political: Likely to spark debates on curriculum control, with supporters viewing it as protecting against divisive teachings and opponents as censoring discussions on systemic racism; as an introduced bill (not yet law), it reflects ongoing partisan divides in education policy.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]

Recent Actions

• 2025-03-21: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
• 2025-03-21: Introduced in House
• 2025-03-21: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Combating Racist Teaching in Schools Act — issued 2025-03-21 — PDF (5 pages)