School Access to Naloxone Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/3588
Last Updated: September 2, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

ID: M001176

Follow the money

The bill

School Access to Naloxone Act of 2026

S. 3588, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

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

The money

$87,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% 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

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The School Access to Naloxone Act of 2026 is a masterclass in feel-good policymaking, designed to make politicians look like they care about the opioid epidemic while actually accomplishing very little.

Let's dissect this bill and expose its underlying diseases: corruption, cowardice, and stupidity.

**Funding:** The bill authorizes an unspecified amount of funding for grants to eligible entities (read: schools) to provide naloxone training and administration. Because who needs actual numbers when you're trying to sound good? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

**Key programs and agencies:** The bill amends the Public Health Service Act, which means we can expect more bureaucratic red tape and inefficiencies. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will be responsible for awarding grants, because what could possibly go wrong with that?

**Notable changes:** Compared to previous years, this bill is a drop in the bucket. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. We're talking about an epidemic that claims tens of thousands of lives annually, and Congress responds with a bill that might – just might – provide some training for school personnel.

**Riders and policy provisions:** Ah, now we get to the good stuff. The bill includes certifications and requirements for schools to receive funding, which is just code for "we're going to create more administrative hurdles and ensure that only the most well-connected schools get the money." And let's not forget the obligatory nod to state attorneys general, because who doesn't love a good game of bureaucratic hot potato?

**Fiscal impact:** This bill will likely have a negligible effect on the deficit, but that's beside the point. The real fiscal impact is the opportunity cost: what could we be doing with this money instead? Investing in actual solutions to the opioid epidemic, perhaps? But no, let's just throw some cash at schools and call it a day.

In conclusion, this bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the inability of our politicians to address real problems. It's a placebo policy designed to make them look good while accomplishing nothing meaningful. I'll give it a diagnosis: "Acute Case of Legislative Incompetence" with a side of "Chronic Cowardice." Prognosis: poor.

Related Topics

Public Health & Pandemic ResponseHealthcare & Insurance Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$87,300
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$11,400
Committees
$0
Individuals
$75,900

No PAC contributions found

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$2,500
2
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
3
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
1 transaction
$2,000
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$1,400
5
CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
6
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$1,000
7
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SHENOY, SUNIL
2 transactions
$10,000
2
BOONE, GARRETT
2 transactions
$6,600
3
GARVER, CURTIS MIKE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
BOONE, CECILIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
RECHNITZ, JOAN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
SOHN, RICHARD FOHS
2 transactions
$6,600
7
STUBBS, MARILYN L.
1 transaction
$5,000
8
BARNHART, PHILIP N.
1 transaction
$5,000
9
HEATHERINGTON, JEFF S.
1 transaction
$5,000
10
BIGLAN, ANTHONY
1 transaction
$5,000
11
CROWLEY, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GORDON, PATRICIA
1 transaction
$3,300
13
STUBBS, ERVIN GENE
1 transaction
$3,200
14
LEWIS, MARY L.
1 transaction
$3,100

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

22

1
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 22, 2023
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024
3
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$90,795
May 31, 2024
4
SCOTT, RICK SEN
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$77,714
May 31, 2023
5
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$69,607
Apr 30, 2024
6
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$68,538
Aug 31, 2023
7
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$53,187
Sep 30, 2023
8
SCOTT, RICK SEN
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$49,992
Jun 30, 2023
9
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$39,695
Jun 30, 2024
10
SCOTT, RICK
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$34,494
Jan 31, 2023

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

ID: K000384

Top Contributors

30

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,300
Jun 18, 2024
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 26, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 25, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
6
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$1,000
Oct 15, 2024
7
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 29, 2023
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$600
Oct 25, 2023
9
STONEHALL FARM
OrganizationTHE PLAINS, VA
$500
Jun 30, 2024
10
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Oct 25, 2023

Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

ID: W000779

Top Contributors

30

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Dec 12, 2024
2
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT
$1,000
Dec 28, 2023
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Dec 30, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSIONS INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Mar 26, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 12, 2024
6
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 31, 2023
7
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Dec 31, 2023
8
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$550
Oct 3, 2023
9
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$500
Jul 18, 2023
10
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$500
Sep 10, 2024

Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]

ID: F000479

Top Contributors

23

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,000
Feb 9, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Nov 29, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
4
SIMMS, RONALD
RONALD SIMMS REAL ESTATE • PRINCIPAL
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$6,700
Jun 18, 2024
5
SIMMS, RONALD
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$3,400
Aug 15, 2024
6
ADLERSTEIN, ARI
SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL ADVISOR
IndividualMERION STATION, PA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
7
GOLDMAN, AMIR
SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST
IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA
$3,300
Oct 6, 2024
8
GOLDMAN, AMIR
SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST
IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA
$3,300
Oct 6, 2024
9
LEPRINO, TERRY
LEPRINO FOODS • OWNER
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
10
MAYER, ABRAHAM
AFTON PROPERTIES • PRINCIPAL
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

ID: H001046

Top Contributors

71

1
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Apr 19, 2024
2
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$21,600
Oct 5, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
OrganizationLAGUNA, NM
$5,800
Sep 30, 2024
4
PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO
OrganizationSANTA FE, NM
$5,000
Oct 30, 2024
5
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Dec 5, 2023
7
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$5,000
Oct 15, 2024
8
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,962
May 10, 2024
9
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]

ID: S001150

Top Contributors

64

1
KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Feb 29, 2024
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Feb 26, 2024
3
KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Feb 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Mar 1, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Mar 1, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023
7
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
8
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Sep 27, 2023
9
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
10
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Jul 21, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 61 nodes and 74 connections

Total contributions: $74

Top Donors - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

  • +Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a)(1)-(2) amends the Public Health Service Act to include 'administering' drugs and devices for opioid overdose treatment, expanding the scope of funded activities to include administration of naloxone and similar drugs, which benefits pharmaceutical manufacturers of such emergency treatments.

  • +Medical Devicesconfidence 0.85

    Section 2(a)(1)-(2) and Section 3(a) reference 'drugs and devices' for emergency opioid overdose treatment, including devices like naloxone auto-injectors, thereby creating demand for medical device manufacturers.

  • Section 3(c)(1)-(3) requires schools to have trained personnel (e.g., school nurses or health center staff) and plans for administering overdose treatment, which may increase coordination with or reliance on hospital-affiliated health systems for training and supplies.

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.60

    Section 3(c)(3) requires trained personnel to be present during all operating hours, potentially increasing work hours or staffing needs for school health workers, who may be represented by labor unions such as SEIU or AFT.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR])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

  • from 86 contributions
    • HAYWARD, ARTHUR D.$500
    • FJELSTAD, CAROLYN$230
    • MANN, EDWARD$225
    • BOWER, MICHAEL$200
    • KEANE, TERESA$200
  • from 4 contributions
    • GOLDMAN, DEBBIE J.$200
    • MARSHALL, ROBERT B.$100
  • from 9 contributions
    • URIZA, VALERIA$45

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

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 380-382AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 education section concern K-12 schools, but the bill focuses on opioid overdose response while Project 2025 emphasizes school choice, vouchers, and deregulation, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:schoolsstudent safetyfederal funding

— 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 Education

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses opioid overdose response in schools via HHS-administered grants, while the Project 2025 education section focuses on school choice, Title I reform, and reducing federal education oversight; they share only a tangential connection through HHS involvement and school-based funding."

Key themes:school safetyHHS grantsstudent healthfederal education funding

— 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: 59%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt involve K-12 education, but the naloxone bill focuses on health/safety interventions for opioid overdoses, whereas Project 2025 emphasizes education choice, state opt-out from federal programs, and accreditation reform—resulting only in tangential overlap."

Key themes:K-12 educationschool safetyfederal funding

— 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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills