Parents Opt-in Protection Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/4986
Last Updated: August 17, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

ID: M001211

Follow the money

The bill

Parents Opt-in Protection Act

HR. 4986, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

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

The money

$123,810 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 377-379 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 15.

July 20, 2026

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 House

🏛️

Senate 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Parents Opt-in Protection Act (HR 4986) claims to protect students' rights by requiring prior written consent for surveys, analyses, or evaluations that reveal personal information. How quaint. How utterly predictable. It's a classic case of "look, we're doing something!" while actually doing nothing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the General Education Provisions Act to require prior written consent for specific surveys, analyses, or evaluations. Oh, wow. They changed "prior consent" to "prior written consent." What a bold move. It's like they're trying to convince us that adding "written" magically makes it more effective. Newsflash: it doesn't.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: students, parents, schools, and the education system as a whole. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the politicians and lobbyists who crafted this bill to appease their constituents and donors. It's a game of pretend, where everyone gets to feel good about "protecting children" without actually doing anything meaningful.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact will be negligible, as this bill is nothing more than a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't address the underlying issues of data collection, student privacy, or the actual problems plaguing our education system. But hey, it'll make for great campaign slogans and soundbites. "We protected your children's rights!" Yeah, sure you did.

Diagnosis: This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the chronic condition of political cowardice. Lawmakers are too afraid to tackle real issues, so they create meaningless legislation that allows them to pretend they're doing something. It's a classic case of legislative placebo effect. The patients (voters) will feel better for a while, but the underlying illness (corruption, incompetence, and greed) will continue to fester.

Prognosis: This bill will pass, not because it's good policy, but because it's an easy way for politicians to score points with their constituents. It'll be touted as a victory for "parents' rights" and "student protection," when in reality, it's just another example of legislative theater designed to distract us from the real problems. And we'll all be left wondering: what's the point of having a functioning brain when you can just vote for whoever promises to "protect the children"?

Related Topics

Elections & Voting Rights
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$123,810
16 donors
PACs
$13,010
Organizations
$1,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$109,300
1
WINRED PAC
1 transaction
$13,010
1
ADAMS MEMORIALS
1 transaction
$1,000
2
VAHLING VINEYARDS
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
BISHOP, JACK L MR
5 transactions
$30,300
2
KASPAR, SCOTT
1 transaction
$13,200
3
FORSYTHE, GERALD R MR
2 transactions
$13,200
4
THOMPSON, JOHN
2 transactions
$10,000
5
DAMAS, BETH A
1 transaction
$6,600
6
FORSYTHE, JEAN
2 transactions
$6,600
7
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
1 transaction
$5,800
8
HELMUTH, FRED
1 transaction
$5,000
9
THRIFT, PAUL
1 transaction
$5,000
10
RYDIN, MIKE
1 transaction
$3,700
11
OBERHELMAN, DIANE A
1 transaction
$3,300
12
SOVIE, DON
1 transaction
$3,300
13
COOLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]

ID: C001115

Top Contributors

21

1
BUTLER CONSULTING
OrganizationPORT LAVACA, TX
$250
Oct 25, 2024
2
BURDGE, THOMAS R
VP OF ACCOUNTING
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$6,600
Oct 3, 2024
3
BORCHERS, CHARLA
RANCHING • INVESTMENTS
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$6,600
Oct 2, 2024
4
BURDGE, THOMAS R
VP OF ACCOUNTING
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$6,600
Oct 3, 2024
5
ATNIP, CHAR
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
6
ATNIP, CLIF
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
7
BURDGE, TAMI
IndividualVICTORIA, TX
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
8
RAMIREZ, PHILIP
TURNER, RAMIREZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. • ARCHITECT
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Jan 4, 2024
9
PARKER, ROBERT E.
REPCON INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX
$3,300
Jan 12, 2024
10
TROXLER, JOSEPH G.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCORDOVA, TN
$3,300
Jan 16, 2024

Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]

ID: H001052

Top Contributors

43

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jun 27, 2023
2
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jun 27, 2023
3
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jun 26, 2023
4
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jun 23, 2023
5
HOUSE FREEDOM FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$800
May 18, 2023
6
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jun 28, 2023
7
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jun 23, 2023
8
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jun 27, 2023
9
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jun 23, 2023
10
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jun 29, 2023

Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]

ID: B000825

Top Contributors

24

1
ENERGY STRONG LLC
OrganizationWINDSOR, CO
$2,000
Oct 4, 2024
2
EFFECTV
OrganizationSAN ANTONIO, TX
$1,169
Aug 29, 2024
3
CAPITOL FOCUS LLC
OrganizationDENVER, CO
$500
Oct 14, 2024
4
J A'S LLC
OrganizationDURANGO, CO
$250
Jun 21, 2023
5
CUYLER, BEVERLY
IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO
$9,100
Jul 1, 2023
6
ELLIOTT, DAVID
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$8,300
Sep 30, 2023
7
COVINGTON, GARY
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$6,800
Jun 14, 2023
8
CLARK, ROBERT
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEWTON, NC
$6,600
Mar 10, 2024
9
BECK, ELAINE
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualORO VALLEY, AZ
$6,600
Jan 17, 2024
10
HINMAN, ROY H.
IndividualSAINT AUGUSTINE, FL
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

ID: S001224

Top Contributors

21

1
TUCKER HILL HOA
OrganizationALLEN, TX
$300
Jun 15, 2023
2
MULLIGI, GINO
NAPOLIAC'S • MANAGER
IndividualWYLIE, TX
$9,000
May 23, 2023
3
FRITCHER, SAMMY
AIRBORNE ASPECT INC • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
Aug 19, 2024
4
LOBB, PAT
SELF • CAR DEALER
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$6,600
Aug 31, 2024
5
MYERS, ROBERT
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMCKINNEY, TX
$6,600
May 19, 2023
6
HUFFINES, RAY
HUFFINES AUTO DEALERSHIPS • AUTO DEALER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 26, 2023
7
MOSES, FRED
TELCOM ELECTRIC SUPPLY
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
Mar 9, 2023
8
LI, QINGSONG
SONGHAO HOLDINGS LLC • OWNER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,000
May 3, 2023
9
CHALIN, THOMAS
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualFAIRVIEW, TX
$5,800
Jan 30, 2024
10
CHALIN, THOMAS
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualFAIRVIEW, TX
$5,800
Aug 12, 2024

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

ID: F000469

Top Contributors

20

1
ROBU, ELI
AJ GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualWORLEY, ID
$3,300
Aug 4, 2024
2
SCOTT, JB
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualBOISE, ID
$3,300
Apr 16, 2024
3
VANDERSLOOT, FRANK
MELALEUCA • CEO
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$3,300
May 1, 2024
4
TURLINGTON, SCOTT
TAMARACK RESORT • HOSPITALITY
IndividualTAMARACK, ID
$3,300
Apr 20, 2024
5
VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$3,300
May 1, 2024
6
BENNETT, BRETT
BENNETT LUMBER • PRESIDENT
IndividualMOSCOW, ID
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
7
WILLIAMS, LARRY
TREE TOP RANCHES • OWNER
IndividualBOISE, ID
$3,300
Feb 13, 2024
8
CENTERS, JAKE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMERIDIAN, ID
$3,300
Feb 15, 2024
9
ROOPE, CALEB
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualEAGLE, ID
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024
10
ROOPE, CALEB
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualEAGLE, ID
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024

Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]

ID: B001291

Top Contributors

23

1
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$3,300
Dec 8, 2023
2
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$3,300
Sep 27, 2024
3
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION - YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO
OrganizationYSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO, TX
$2,500
Jun 13, 2023
4
WORTHAM, ROBERT JUDGE
JEFFERSON COUNTY • DISTRICT ATTORNEY
IndividualBEAUMONT, TX
$6,600
Jul 14, 2023
5
WORTHAM, ROBERT J. JUDGE
IndividualBEAUMONT, TX
$6,600
Jul 20, 2023
6
BARTLETT, BRUCE
BARTLETT GROUP • TREASURER
IndividualRANCHO SANTA FE, CA
$3,300
Oct 24, 2023
7
MCINGVALE, JAMES F.
GALLERY FURNITURE • FOUNDER/CEO
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Nov 3, 2023
8
MCINGVALE, LINDA
GALLERY FURNITURE/WESTSIDE TENNIS CLUB • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Nov 3, 2023
9
OZMEN, FATIH M. MRS.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSPARKS, NV
$3,300
Nov 17, 2023
10
ALLEN, ROGER
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPASADENA, TX
$3,300
Jul 3, 2024

Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]

ID: B001316

Top Contributors

21

1
OZARK SHOOT-DON'T SHOOT SOLUTIONS LLC
OrganizationHIGHLANDVILLE, MO
$250
Oct 11, 2024
2
CARNES, CAROL
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE AGENT
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
3
WATTS, BARRY
SAVINGYOUTAXES.COM • FINANCIAL ADVISOR
IndividualROGERSVILLE, MO
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
4
JOHN, STACK
ISAGENIX • INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO
$3,300
Nov 20, 2023
5
BRAUER, BEAU
HUNTER ENGINEERING • PRESIDENT
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$3,300
Jan 4, 2024
6
BRAUER, BEAU
HUNTER ENGINEERING • PRESIDENT
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$3,300
Jan 4, 2024
7
BRAUER, SUZY
IndividualBRIDGETON, MO
$3,300
Jan 4, 2024
8
BRAUER, SUZY
IndividualBRIDGETON, MO
$3,300
Jan 4, 2024
9
KAMAT, SONA
WEST COUNTY RHEUMATOLOGY • RHEUMATOLOGIST
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$3,300
Jan 12, 2024
10
WHIRE, DEBBIEJO
KANAKUK • CAMPING
IndividualBRANSON, MO
$3,300
Feb 15, 2024

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

ID: H001077

Top Contributors

20

1
HEBERT, MARC
JONES WALKER • ATTORNEY
IndividualMETAIRIE, LA
$3,500
Sep 8, 2024
2
HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR
B&G FOOD ENTERPRISES LLC. • CORP. SECRETARY
IndividualMORGAN CITY, LA
$3,300
Nov 25, 2024
3
FREY, GERARD A.
SELF EMPLOYED • FARMERS
IndividualIOTA, LA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
CRAPPEL, ADAM
AE OFFICE MACHINES • PRESIDENT
IndividualPATTERSON, LA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
5
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
ULINE • CEO
IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL
$3,300
Jan 26, 2023
6
BOLLINGER, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
7
BOLLINGER, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
8
COOLEY, WILLIAM
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
9
HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR
BG FOOD ENTERPRISES LLC • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMORGAN CITY, LA
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
10
DAVIS, JORDAN
WESTERN CONSTRUCTION ROOFING • SALES PROJECT MANAGER
IndividualHARRISON, ID
$3,300
Jan 9, 2024

Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

ID: H001086

Top Contributors

20

1
BROWN, NANCY I.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Mar 7, 2024
2
NANCY, BROWN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Mar 31, 2024
3
GREGORY, LUCINDA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPINEY FLATS, TN
$6,600
May 21, 2024
4
BANKE, BARBARA R
IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA
$6,600
Nov 30, 2023
5
MORRIS, GLENN
IndividualSTUART, FL
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
6
TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J MISS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jul 16, 2024
7
EGER, MORDECHI
HLU SALES INC • OWNER
IndividualAIRMONT, NY
$5,000
Dec 28, 2023
8
BORDEAU, BRAD
BORDEAU METALS • CEO
IndividualDICKSON, TN
$5,000
Sep 11, 2024
9
BENTZ, KAREN
IndividualGATLINBURG, TN
$5,000
Sep 30, 2023
10
MOUNTAIN, MONICA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW TAZEWELL, TN
$3,600
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]

ID: M001212

Top Contributors

45

1
WINRED TECHNICAL SERVICES
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
2
ENTERPRISE TARPAULIN PRODUCTS, INC.
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
3
WINRED TECHNICAL SERVICES
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$3,300
Jul 16, 2023
4
WINRED TECHNICAL SERVICES
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$3,300
Jul 16, 2023
5
NORTH MONTGOMERY MATERIALS LLC
OrganizationMILLBROOK, AL
$3,300
Sep 11, 2023
6
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Aug 21, 2023
7
SOUTHLAND STRUCTURAL LLC
OrganizationFLORALA, AL
$3,300
Aug 22, 2023
8
WATSON GLASS
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Sep 13, 2023
9
WATSON GLASS
OrganizationENTERPRISE, AL
$3,300
Sep 13, 2023
10
ARGUTA RESOURCES, LLC
OrganizationEUFAULA, AL
$2,500
Aug 2, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 34 nodes and 46 connections

Total contributions: $46

Top Donors - Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2 of the bill amends the General Education Provisions Act to require prior written consent for surveys, analyses, or evaluations that reveal personal information about students or their families, which could potentially reduce the amount of data available to for-profit education institutions and limit their ability to target marketing efforts.

  • +Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.60

    The bill's focus on protecting student privacy and requiring parental consent may be seen as aligning with the interests of teachers unions, which often advocate for student welfare and reduced administrative burdens on educators, as mentioned in Section 1: 'Parents Opt-in Protection Act'

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

Strong
Vector: 67%
Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4986 aligns closely with Project 2025's goal of strengthening parental rights in education by amending PPRA to require prior written consent for surveys revealing personal information, directly supporting the policy's emphasis on protecting parental authority over children's participation in sensitive educational activities."

Key themes:parental rightsProtection of Pupil Rights Amendmentprior written consentstudent privacysurvey participation

— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal — 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and

Department of Education

Strong
Vector: 66%
Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4986 strengthens parental consent requirements for surveys that reveal personal information, directly supporting Project 2025's goal of enhancing parental rights and protecting students from involuntary disclosure of sensitive data in educational settings."

Key themes:parental consentstudent privacysurvey protectionsPPRA alignmentparental rights

— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal

Department of Education

Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4986 advances parental rights by requiring prior written consent for student surveys that reveal personal information, directly supporting the Project 2025 goal of prioritizing legislation that strengthens parental protections in education."

Key themes:parental rightsstudent privacyconsent for surveysPPRA/FERPA protectionseducational data control

— 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and — 346 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise surgeries without parental involvement does not reduce the suicidality of these young people and may even increase suicide rates. l The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today—especially young girls. School officials in some states are requiring teachers and other school employ- ees to accept a minor child’s decision to assume a different “gender” while at school—without notifying parents. In California, New Jersey, and certain districts in Kansas and elsewhere, educators are prohibited from informing parents about children’s confusion over their sex if the children do not want their parents to know. Such policies allow schools to drive a wedge between parents and children. The next Administration should work with Congress to provide an example to state lawmakers by requiring K–12 districts under federal jurisdiction, including Wash- ington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools, with legislation stating that: l No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student’s birth certificate, without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public education employee or contractor shall use a pronoun in addressing a student that is different from that student’s biological sex without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions. State lawmakers should use this model and adopt similar provisions for public schools within their borders. Federal lawmakers should not allow public school employees to keep secrets about a child from that child’s parents. Advance School Choice Policies The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a voucher program providing scholarships to children from low-income families living in the nation’s capital to attend a private school of choice, is capped at $20 million annually and limited to

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills