The bill
CIVICS Act of 2025
S. 2841, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
Sponsored by
Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]
ID: K000383
Follow the money
The bill
S. 2841, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 395-397 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.
March 18, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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!
Another masterpiece from the esteemed members of Congress, who have once again managed to craft a bill that's as vapid as it is verbose. The CIVICS Act of 2025 – because what America really needs is another acronym to confuse its citizens.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to amend the American History and Civics Education program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In other words, it's a rehashing of existing legislation with some added window dressing to make it seem like Congress is actually doing something meaningful. The real purpose? To create a veneer of civic engagement while lining the pockets of special interest groups.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires hands-on civic engagement activities for teachers and students, because apparently, that's not already being done in schools. It also mandates programs that educate students about the history and principles of the Constitution – you know, the same document that most politicians have never actually read.
The changes to existing law are minimal, but they do include some lovely buzzwords like "innovation," "scalability," and "accountability." Because who doesn't love a good dose of bureaucratic doublespeak?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects teachers, students, schools, and the usual suspects in the education industrial complex. But let's be real – the only ones who will truly benefit from this legislation are the lobbyists and special interest groups who have been pushing for it.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible at best. It's a Band-Aid solution to a much deeper problem – the systemic failure of America's education system. By focusing on "civic engagement" and "Constitutional education," Congress is avoiding the real issues, like underfunding schools, teacher shortages, and the crippling influence of standardized testing.
In short, this bill is a placebo designed to make Americans feel like their government is doing something meaningful about education. Meanwhile, the disease of ignorance and apathy will continue to spread unchecked.
Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis – a chronic condition characterized by grandstanding, empty rhetoric, and a complete lack of actual progress.
Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out politicians on their blatant lies.
Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: L000575
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000437
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000384
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001227
Top Contributors
10
ID: V000128
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 58 nodes and 39 connections (52 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $160,800
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2 amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require hands-on civic engagement activities and education about the Constitution, potentially reducing demand for for-profit education services that focus on these areas.
Section 2 includes provisions for teacher professional development through hands-on civic engagement activities, which may benefit teachers unions by promoting their members' interests and expertise.
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 CIVICS Act's focus on teaching the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and hands-on civic engagement aligns closely with Project 2025's education priority of promoting patriotic civics instruction and supporting innovative, scalable programs that emphasize American founding principles."
— 362 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Milton Friedman, The Role of Government in Education (1955), https://la.utexas.edu/users/ hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10. 3. Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329. 4. Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Funds. 5. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112. 6. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 94-142. 7. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, Perkins IV, Public Law 109-270. 8. S. 510, Department of Education Organization Act, Public Law 96-88. 9. Ambassador Susan Rice, Gene Sperling, and Clarence Wardell III, Advancing Equity through the American Rescue Plan, pg. 26. May 2022, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ADVANCING- EQUITY-THROUGH-THE-AMERICAN-RESCUE-PLAN.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Education, Overview and Mission Statement, https://www2.ed.gov/about/landing. jhtml#:~:text=ED's%20mission%20is%20to%20promote,offices%20from%20several%20federal%20agencies (accessed February 28, 2023). 11. Jonathan Butcher, “Who Signs Your Paycheck?” Education Next, https://www.educationnext.org/who-signs- your-paycheck-federal-influence-state-education-agencies/#_edn1 (last updated, April 9, 2018). 12. Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What’s Wasted in Education Today, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 17, 1998, pp. xiii and xiv. 13. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015). 14. 20 U.S.C. §6571. Under subchapter I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) and Section 20 U.S.C. §1022f; 20 U.S.C. §1098a. Under Title 20, Section 1098a, of the U.S. Code, the Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement for negotiated rulemaking if he or she “determines that applying such a requirement with respect to given regulations is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (within the meaning of section 553(b)(3)(B) of [the APA]), and publishes the basis for such determination in the Federal Register at the same time as the proposed regulations in question are first published.” 20 U.S.C. §1098a(b)(2). Congressional Research Service, “Negotiated Rulemaking: In Brief,” April 12, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46756 (accessed March 13, 2023). 15. H.R. 8767, Empowering Parents Act, 117th Congress. 16. H.R. 5, Parents Bill of Rights Act. 17. H.J.Res. 99, Public Law 115-30. 18. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. 19. National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts: Title I,” https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158 (accessed February 28, 2023).
AI Analysis:
"The CIVICS Act of 2025 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening civic education and promoting foundational American principles, particularly through mandated instruction on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which supports the conservative goal of fostering an informed citizenry grounded in constitutional literacy."
— 362 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Milton Friedman, The Role of Government in Education (1955), https://la.utexas.edu/users/ hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10. 3. Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329. 4. Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Funds. 5. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112. 6. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 94-142. 7. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, Perkins IV, Public Law 109-270. 8. S. 510, Department of Education Organization Act, Public Law 96-88. 9. Ambassador Susan Rice, Gene Sperling, and Clarence Wardell III, Advancing Equity through the American Rescue Plan, pg. 26. May 2022, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ADVANCING- EQUITY-THROUGH-THE-AMERICAN-RESCUE-PLAN.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Education, Overview and Mission Statement, https://www2.ed.gov/about/landing. jhtml#:~:text=ED's%20mission%20is%20to%20promote,offices%20from%20several%20federal%20agencies (accessed February 28, 2023). 11. Jonathan Butcher, “Who Signs Your Paycheck?” Education Next, https://www.educationnext.org/who-signs- your-paycheck-federal-influence-state-education-agencies/#_edn1 (last updated, April 9, 2018). 12. Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What’s Wasted in Education Today, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 17, 1998, pp. xiii and xiv. 13. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015). 14. 20 U.S.C. §6571. Under subchapter I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) and Section 20 U.S.C. §1022f; 20 U.S.C. §1098a. Under Title 20, Section 1098a, of the U.S. Code, the Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement for negotiated rulemaking if he or she “determines that applying such a requirement with respect to given regulations is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (within the meaning of section 553(b)(3)(B) of [the APA]), and publishes the basis for such determination in the Federal Register at the same time as the proposed regulations in question are first published.” 20 U.S.C. §1098a(b)(2). Congressional Research Service, “Negotiated Rulemaking: In Brief,” April 12, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46756 (accessed March 13, 2023). 15. H.R. 8767, Empowering Parents Act, 117th Congress. 16. H.R. 5, Parents Bill of Rights Act. 17. H.J.Res. 99, Public Law 115-30. 18. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. 19. National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts: Title I,” https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158 (accessed February 28, 2023). — 363 — 12 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RELATED COMMISSIONS Bernard L. McNamee AMERICAN ENERGY AND SCIENCE DOMINANCE The next conservative Administration should prioritize energy and science dominance to ensure that Americans have abundant, affordable, and reliable energy; create good-paying jobs; support domestic manufacturing and technology leadership; and strengthen national security. Achieving these goals will require bold policy action and reforms that involve the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). American Energy Dominance. Access to affordable, reliable, and abundant energy is vital to America’s economy, national security, and quality of life. Yet ideologically driven government policies have thrust the United States into a new energy crisis just a few short years after America’s energy renaissance, which began in the first decade of the 2000s, transformed the United States from a net energy importer (oil and natural gas) to energy independence and then energy dominance. Americans now face energy scarcity, an electric grid that is less reliable, and arti- ficial shortages of natural gas and oil despite massive reserves within the United States—all of which has led to higher prices that burden both the American people and the economy. The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme “green” policies. Under the rubrics of “combating climate change” and “ESG” (environmen- tal, social, and governance), the Biden Administration, Congress, and various states, as well as Wall Street investors, international corporations, and progressive spe- cial-interest groups, are changing America’s energy landscape. These ideologically
AI Analysis:
"The CIVICS Act of 2025 focuses on enhancing civics education through federal funding for hands-on learning and constitutional instruction, while Project 2025's Department of Education section emphasizes school choice, opting out of federal programs, and accreditation reform—there is minimal thematic overlap between the two."
— 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
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.