Total Force Family Education Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5987

Last Updated: November 12, 2025

Total Force Family Education Act

HR. 5987, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$68,600 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 380-382 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Total Force Family Education Act (HR 5987). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a benevolent gesture towards the families of reserve component members performing active service. But let's peel back the layers and examine the true implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of this bill is to ensure equitable access to Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) schools for dependents of certain members of the reserve components. A noble cause, perhaps, but one that I'll dissect in due course.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 2164 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new subsection (n). This provision grants eligibility for dependents of certain members of the reserve components to attend DODEA schools at their permanent station. The language is deliberately vague, but I'll get to that later.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are the families of reserve component members performing active service. However, let's not forget the true beneficiaries: the Department of Defense and its contractors. This bill will undoubtedly lead to increased spending on education infrastructure, which will likely be outsourced to private companies – a potential windfall for my own interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, let's get to the meat of the matter. By expanding access to DODEA schools, this bill may seem like a minor tweak, but it has significant implications for the education sector as a whole. It sets a precedent for further privatization and deregulation in the industry. The vague language surrounding eligibility will inevitably lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies, creating opportunities for private companies to fill the gaps.

In my estimation, this bill could lead to a $500 million increase in Department of Defense spending on education contracts over the next five years. Not an insignificant sum, considering the potential for lucrative partnerships and profit margins.

Make no mistake; this bill is not about "equitable access" or "supporting our troops." It's about creating new avenues for private enterprise to exploit government largesse. And I'll be watching closely, ready to capitalize on these opportunities as they arise.

In conclusion, the Total Force Family Education Act is a Trojan horse for privatization and deregulation in the education sector. As a visionary entrepreneur, I see the writing on the wall: this bill will pave the way for further consolidation of power and wealth among the elite – including myself.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$68,600

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$1,000

Committees

Individuals

$67,600

No PAC contributions found

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

2 transactions

$1,000

No committee contributions found

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

2 transactions

$8,000

VON STEIN, THOMSON

1 transaction

$3,500

HULL, MEGAN

1 transaction

$3,300

KAISER, GEORGE

1 transaction

$3,300

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

1 transaction

$3,300

STAPLE, HARISE

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLMES, LAURA

1 transaction

$3,300

GOCHMAN, MOLLY

1 transaction

$3,300

RESNICK, LYNDA

1 transaction

$3,300

HELLMAN, FRANCES

1 transaction

$3,300

CHOPIVSKY JR, GEORGE

1 transaction

$3,300

LAUDER, GARY

1 transaction

$3,300

DANIEL, JOSEPH R

1 transaction

$3,300

HELM, NELSON

1 transaction

$3,300

GROSSE, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

GREENFIELD, JOANNA

1 transaction

$3,300

SCRANTON, PETER

1 transaction

$3,300

BRAUFMAN, JILL

1 transaction

$3,300

WOODS, LAURE L.

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 51 nodes and 22 connections (59 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $68,600

Top Donors - Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 Org19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 of the bill amends title 10, United States Code, to ensure equitable access to Department of Defense Education Activity schools for dependents of certain members of the reserve components performing active service, which may benefit defense contractors by supporting the well-being of military personnel and their families.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Defense Contractors$5,366
from 48 contributions
- HUNT, DENNIS$800
- RANCOURT, JOSEPH R.$760
- SMITH, BENJAMIN$500
- BLISS, WILLIAM$350
- STONE, RICHARD$350

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Education

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 380-382AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands access to DODEA schools for reserve-component dependents, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on improving education for military-connected students, but it does not adopt the policy's core mechanism of education savings accounts or school choice."

Key themes:military familiesDODEA schoolseducation access

— 347 — Department of Education students at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line. The maximum schol- arship amount is $9,401 for students in kindergarten through eighth grade and $14,102 for students in grades nine through 12. The average scholarship amount is around $10,000, or less than half of the current per-student funding amount in D.C. Public Schools. l Congress should expand eligibility to all students, regardless of income or background, and raise the scholarship amount closer to the funding students receive in D.C. Public Schools (spending per student in 2020 was $22,856). l All families should be able to take their children’s taxpayer-funded education dollars to the education providers of their choosing— whether it be a public school or a private school. l Congress should additionally deregulate the program by removing the requirement of private schools to administer the D.C. Public Schools assessment and allowing private schools to control their admissions processes. Provide Education Choice for Populations Under the Jurisdiction of Congress The federal government oversees three school systems that Washington should transform into examples of quality learning environments for every child in those systems: students attending schools in Washington, D.C.; students in active-duty military families, including students attending schools operated by the U.S. Depart- ment of Defense; and students attending schools on tribal lands, which include schools under the Bureau of Indian Education. In each of these systems, federal lawmakers should allow every student the option of using an education savings account so that parents can select different education products and services to meet their child’s needs. Nearly 50,000 students attended public schools in the District of Columbia in the 2021–2022 school year. In 2022, fourth grade math students scored 11 points lower than fourth graders in 2019, which means District children lost an entire year of learning over the course of the pandemic. Eighth graders also lost an entire year of learning in math. l Federal lawmakers should offer District students the opportunity to use education savings accounts. A portion of a child’s federal education spending should be deposited in a private spending account that parents can use to pay for personal tutors, education therapists, books and curricular — 348 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise materials, private school tuition, transportation and more—accounts modeled after the accounts in Arizona, Florida, West Virginia, and seven other states. l Members of Congress should design the same account system for students in active-duty military families, including students attending schools that receive funding under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).18 Heritage Foundation research found that if even 10 percent of the students eli- gible for accounts under such a proposal transferred from an assigned school to an education savings account, the change for the sending district would be 0.1 percent of that school district’s K–12 budget. Even in heavily impacted districts (districts with a large number of students receiving Impact Aid), the budgetary effect would be less than 2 percent. Yet these children would then have the chance to receive a customized education that meets their unique needs. As with state ESA programs, families who are homeschooling are distinct in statute from families who use an ESA to customize an education at home. Furthermore, research from the Claremont Institute used documents pro- vided by a whistleblower demonstrating how educators at Department of Defense schools around the world are using radical gender theory and critical race theory in their lessons. This instructional material discards biology in favor of political indoctrination and applies critical race theory’s core tenets advocating for more racial discrimination. Such ideas are highly unpopular among parents, accord- ing to nationally representative surveys, and the course material attempts to indoctrinate students with radical ideas about race and the ambiguous concept of “gender.” Finally, schools on tribal lands and under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are among the worst-performing public schools in the country. Research from Rep. Burgess Owens’ office reports that the graduation rate for BIE students is 53 percent, lower than the average for Native American students in public schools around the country, and nearly 30 percentage points lower than the national average for all students. In 2015, Arizona lawmakers expanded the state’s education savings account program to include children living on tribal lands, and by 2021, nearly 400 Native American children were using the accounts. l Federal officials should design a federal education savings account option for all children attending BIE schools. The next Administration should make the K–12 systems under federal juris- diction examples of quality learning opportunities and education freedom.

Department of Defense

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving education access for reserve component families, which aligns with Project 2025's DOD PERSONNEL goals of enhancing recruiting and retention through better quality‑of‑life support, though it does not address the policy's primary exportability, arms‑sales, or contracting reforms."

Key themes:military family supportrecruiting and retentionquality of lifereserve component readinessDODEA education

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding DODEA school access for reserve component military families, while Project 2025's Department of Education section emphasizes school choice, Title I reform, and state opt-outs from federal programs. Both address education access and equity, but the bill does not align with Project 2025's specific proposals like micro-education savings accounts, shifting Title I to HHS, or federal spending phase-outs."

Key themes:education accessequity in educationfederal education policyschool choicestate/local control

— 350 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise would give the families of children with special needs approximately $1,800 per child to help meet a child’s unique learning needs. l Members of Congress and the White House should consider a similar update to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I is the largest portion of federal taxpayer spending under this federal education law, and the section provides additional taxpayer resources to schools or groups of schools in lower income areas. Federal taxpayers committed $16.3 billion to Title I in FY 2019, spending that is dedicated to students in low-income areas of the U.S. Per student, this spending amounts to more than $1,400 for a child in a large city and approximately $1,300 for a student in a remote, rural area.19 Research finds, though, that this enormous investment has not produced positive results for children in need. The achievement gap between children from the highest and lowest income deciles has not improved over the past 50 years. And recent, dismal outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed declines for all students, with math scores registering declines for the first time in history. l Initially, the responsibilities for administering and overseeing Title I should be moved to HHS, along with IDEA. l Students attending schools that receive Title I spending should also have access to micro-education savings accounts that allow families to choose how and where their children learn according to their needs. l Parents should be allowed to use their child’s Title I resources to help pay for private learning options including tutoring services and curricular materials. l Over a 10-year period, the federal spending should be phased out and states should assume decision-making control over how to provide a quality education to children from low-income families. Additional School Choice Options House Republicans included school choice in their “Commitment to America” agenda. l Though actions by state lawmakers are essential and any federal policies should be strictly designed so they do not conflict with state activities, Congress could consider school choice legislation such — 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 380-382AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section concern improving education for military families, but the bill focuses on expanding access to DODEA schools while Project 2025 emphasizes education savings accounts, school choice, and reducing federal oversight—resulting only in tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:military familieseducation accessDepartment of Defense schoolsequitable opportunity

— 348 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise materials, private school tuition, transportation and more—accounts modeled after the accounts in Arizona, Florida, West Virginia, and seven other states. l Members of Congress should design the same account system for students in active-duty military families, including students attending schools that receive funding under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).18 Heritage Foundation research found that if even 10 percent of the students eli- gible for accounts under such a proposal transferred from an assigned school to an education savings account, the change for the sending district would be 0.1 percent of that school district’s K–12 budget. Even in heavily impacted districts (districts with a large number of students receiving Impact Aid), the budgetary effect would be less than 2 percent. Yet these children would then have the chance to receive a customized education that meets their unique needs. As with state ESA programs, families who are homeschooling are distinct in statute from families who use an ESA to customize an education at home. Furthermore, research from the Claremont Institute used documents pro- vided by a whistleblower demonstrating how educators at Department of Defense schools around the world are using radical gender theory and critical race theory in their lessons. This instructional material discards biology in favor of political indoctrination and applies critical race theory’s core tenets advocating for more racial discrimination. Such ideas are highly unpopular among parents, accord- ing to nationally representative surveys, and the course material attempts to indoctrinate students with radical ideas about race and the ambiguous concept of “gender.” Finally, schools on tribal lands and under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are among the worst-performing public schools in the country. Research from Rep. Burgess Owens’ office reports that the graduation rate for BIE students is 53 percent, lower than the average for Native American students in public schools around the country, and nearly 30 percentage points lower than the national average for all students. In 2015, Arizona lawmakers expanded the state’s education savings account program to include children living on tribal lands, and by 2021, nearly 400 Native American children were using the accounts. l Federal officials should design a federal education savings account option for all children attending BIE schools. The next Administration should make the K–12 systems under federal juris- diction examples of quality learning opportunities and education freedom. — 349 — Department of Education Washington should convert some of the lowest-performing public school systems in the country into areas defined by choices, creating rigorous learning options for all children and from all backgrounds, income levels, and ethnicities. Expand Education Choice Through Portability of Existing Federal Funds Setting education policy on the right track long term would require sunsetting the U.S. Department of Education altogether. Doing so would not result in fewer resources and less assistance for children with special needs or from low-income families. Rather, closing the federal behemoth would better target existing taxpayer resources already set aside for these students by shifting oversight responsibilities to federal and state agencies that have more expertise in helping these populations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law gov- erning taxpayer spending on K–12 students with special needs. The law stipulates that students have a right to a “free and appropriate education,” and 95 percent of children with special needs attend assigned public schools. The education is not always appropriate, however: Special education is fraught with legal battles. Some argue that the education of children with special needs is the most litigated area of K–12 education. Thus, despite a nearly 50-year-old federal law that sees regular revision and reauthorization and approximately $13.5 billion per year in federal taxpayer spending, parents still struggle to establish intervention plans for their students with public school district officials regarding the physical and educational requirements for their children with special needs. State-level education options often exclusively serve children with special needs for these very reasons. Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina, to name a few states, all have education savings accounts or K–12 private school scholarship options for children with special needs. l Federal lawmakers should move IDEA oversight and implementation to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. l Officials should then consider revising IDEA to require that a child’s portion of the federal taxpayer spending under the law be made available to families so parents can choose how and where a child learns. l IDEA already allows families to choose a private school under certain conditions, but federal officials should update the law so that families can use their child’s IDEA spending for textbooks, education therapies, personal tutors, and other learning expenses, similar to the way in which parents use education savings accounts in states such as Arizona and Florida. These micro-education savings accounts

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 65%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding access to Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) schools for military reserve families, which is unrelated to Project 2025's education policy objectives centered on federal scholarship tax credits, state opt-outs from federal education programs, and higher education accreditation reform."

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Total Force Family Education Act