119-HR-8705 Journalist Public Summary
119 · HR 8705 CHARLIE Act
A new House bill would bar federal American History and Civics grants from funding what it calls “discriminatory equity ideology” or “gender ideology,” and would forbid the Education Department from favoring applicants based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status. It ties those terms to recent executive orders and leaves the program’s basic purpose—supporting civics/history education—intact while narrowing what federal funds can support.
Headline Summary
A House proposal would restrict American History and Civics grants so they can’t fund what it labels “discriminatory equity ideology” or “gender ideology,” and it would bar giving priority to applicants based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status.
What It Does
The bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s American History and Civics program to prohibit grant dollars from supporting two categories it names: “discriminatory equity ideology” and “gender ideology.” It defines those terms by reference to recent executive orders and also forbids the Education Department from prioritizing applicants—or their proposed activities—because of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status. In short, it keeps the civics/history grant program in place but narrows what kinds of content and selection criteria federal funds may support. (en.wikisource.org)
Who’s For It
- Rep. Burgess Owens (R‑UT), the sponsor; he has previously advanced related proposals to restrict use of federal education funds for certain DEI or gender‑related content. (congress.gov)
- Supporters aligned with recent executive orders argue the bill ensures federal dollars don’t promote “gender ideology” or certain equity frameworks in K‑12 civics/history programs. (federalregister.gov)
Who’s Against It
- Teachers’ unions and education groups that opposed similar “patriotic education” definitions say measures like this politicize curriculum and chill discussion of race and gender. (nea.org)
- Civil‑rights and LGBTQ+ advocates challenging related executive‑order provisions in court argue such policies impose unconstitutional, viewpoint‑based restrictions on speech and programs. (natlawreview.com)
What’s Next
As of May 9, 2026, the bill has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce; it has not received a hearing or vote yet.
Discussion