Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill bars the Department of Education from using funds made available by prior Appropriations Acts for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year to carry out any reorganization that decentralizes, cuts staff, or changes responsibilities, structure, authority, or functionality compared to the Department's organization on January 1, 2025. The bill includes findings listing the Department’s key offices and states Congress’s role in shaping agencies.
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and student-aid offices.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill articulates a clear administrative restriction—a funding prohibition tied to a specific baseline organizational date—but provides minimal operational detail beyond that prohibition.
This bill bars the Department of Education from using funds made available by prior Appropriations Acts for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year to carry out any reorganization that decentralizes, cuts staff, or changes responsibilities, structure, authority, or functionality compared to the Department's organization on January 1, 2025.
The bill includes findings listing the Department’s key offices and states Congress’s role in shaping agencies.
It applies to activities that implement such reorganizations and is limited to previously appropriated funds for the current fiscal year.
Narrow, low-cost bill with political implications; easier in the originating chamber but difficult in the Senate absent broad agreement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill articulates a clear administrative restriction—a funding prohibition tied to a specific baseline organizational date—but provides minimal operational detail beyond that prohibition.
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and student-aid offices.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and student-aid offices.
Likely supportive because it preserves current Department offices that advance equity, civil rights, and federal education capacity.
Sees the ban as protecting programs like OCR, Federal Student Aid, and IES from dismantling or decentralization.
Mixed but cautiously favorable to preserving continuity while skeptical about a blanket ban.
Views the bill as protecting programs but worries it may limit legitimate, evidence-based management improvements.
Likely opposed because it restricts executive flexibility and preserves federal bureaucracy.
Views the prohibition as congressional micromanagement that prevents decentralization or downsizing of federal education functions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost bill with political implications; easier in the originating chamber but difficult in the Senate absent broad agreement.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes protecting civil rights and student-aid offices.
Narrow, low-cost bill with political implications; easier in the originating chamber but difficult in the Senate absent broad agreement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill articulates a clear administrative restriction—a funding prohibition tied to a specific baseline organizational date—but provides minimal operational detail beyond th…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.