The bill
Protect Every Preschooler Act of 2026
HR. 9205, 119th Congress — read as touching Firearms & Ammunition.
Sponsored by
Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]
ID: S001230
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 9205, 119th Congress — read as touching Firearms & Ammunition.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 377-379 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4134)
June 22, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
**Summary of H.R. 9205: Protect Every Preschooler Act of 2026**
**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The stated purpose of H.R. 9205 is to expand the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to include early childhood education programs and preschools, thereby extending federal criminal penalties for possessing firearms within 1,000 feet of these facilities. Ostensibly, this is about “protecting our most vulnerable”—toddlers who, according to the bill’s sponsors, are apparently under constant threat of armed insurgency in the sandbox. In reality, this is legislative security theater: a feel-good measure designed to let politicians pretend they’re doing something about gun violence while avoiding any actual confrontation with the Second Amendment, the gun lobby, or the fact that most school shootings involve teenagers, not armed intruders targeting naptime.
**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(27), which defines “school zone” for the purposes of the Gun-Free School Zones Act. It redefines the term to explicitly include: - (A) traditional K–12 schools (unchanged), - (B) early childhood education programs (as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965), and - (C) preschools (defined via the Higher Education Act’s “eligible preschool program” language).
This syntactic gymnastics—inserting semicolons, adding subparagraphs—achieves nothing substantive beyond expanding the geographic scope of federal gun possession prohibitions to cover daycare centers, Head Start programs, and private preschools. Violations remain punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine, or both—assuming federal prosecutors bother to charge them, which they rarely do outside of plea bargains tied to other crimes.
**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Affected:** Parents, teachers, and staff at preschools and early learning centers who now face the theoretical risk of federal prosecution if they (or someone nearby) possess a firearm within 1,000 feet—say, in a parked car during drop-off. - **Unaffected:** Criminals, who ignore signs and laws alike; gun owners who already avoid these zones out of caution or confusion; and the firearms industry, which continues to sell weapons unimpeded. - **Stakeholders:** Gun control advocates get a symbolic win; the NRA gets to fundraise off “government overreach”; preschool administrators get more compliance paperwork; and voters get another hollow gesture to cheer or jeer, depending on their tribe.
**4. Potential Impact & Implications** Practically, this bill will change almost nothing. The original Gun-Free School Zones Act has been largely ineffective and constitutionally dubious (see *United States v. Lopez*, 1995, which struck it down as exceeding Congress’s Commerce Clause power—though a later jurisdictional hook revived it). Expanding it to preschools doesn’t address the root causes of gun violence, nor does it prevent determined attackers. It does, however, create new opportunities for arbitrary enforcement, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities already over-policed for minor offenses.
Ultimately, this is not about safety—it’s about the illusion of action. Congress prefers to criminalize proximity to toys rather than confront the profitability of firearms or the starvation of mental health services. The Protect Every Preschooler Act of 2026 doesn’t protect preschoolers. It protects legislators from having to do anything real. Diagnosis: legislative placebo effect, with side effects of cynicism and wasted paper. Prognosis: terminal.
Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: N000147
Top Contributors
20
ID: M001196
Top Contributors
21
ID: J000288
Top Contributors
20
ID: H001081
Top Contributors
25
ID: B001292
Top Contributors
24
ID: F000476
Top Contributors
22
ID: C001119
Top Contributors
27
ID: F000477
Top Contributors
20
ID: C001080
Top Contributors
39
ID: K000391
Top Contributors
23
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 34 nodes and 48 connections
Total contributions: $48
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2 of the bill expands the Gun Free School Zones Act to include early childhood education programs and preschools, which could lead to increased restrictions on firearm possession and sales, thereby harming the firearms industry.
The bill's focus on expanding gun-free school zones may be seen as a positive development for teachers' unions, which often advocate for safer working conditions.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on expanding gun-free zones to preschools, while the Project 2025 policy centers on parental rights in education, particularly regarding curriculum transparency and legal remedies for FERPA/PPRA violations. There is no substantive overlap in objectives or themes."
— 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
AI Analysis:
"The bill expands gun-free zones to preschools, focusing on child safety from firearms, while the Project 2025 policy centers on parental rights in education, FERPA/PPRA enforcement, and opposition to gender ideology in schools. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."
— 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
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on expanding gun-free zones to preschools for child safety, while the Project 2025 policy centers on parental rights in education, particularly regarding curriculum transparency and consent for surveys. There is no meaningful thematic or policy overlap between the two."
— 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
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 46164 Westlake Drive in Sterling, Virginia, as the Firefighter Trevor Brown Post Office Building.
119/hr/5058
Data Infrastructure Energy Measurement and Standards Act
119/hr/9372
To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
119/hr/1352