- Federal agenciesExpanded federal data collection enables identification and public reporting of disciplinary disparities across student…
- WorkersGrants fund hiring of counselors, social workers, and trauma-informed staff, potentially increasing school mental healt…
- StudentsProhibitions on many exclusionary practices likely reduce suspensions, expulsions, and lost instructional time for targ…
Ending PUSHOUT Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The bill strengthens federal data collection and reporting on exclusionary school discipline and funds competitive grants to reduce suspensions, expulsions, restraints, and other exclusionary practices. Grants require schools to adopt restorative, trauma-informed, and culturally sustaining approaches, prohibit certain punishments (corporal punishment, seclusion, many restraints), and bar use of grant funds to hire school-based law enforcement or purchase surveillance.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights, anti-punitive, mental health benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy-change vehicle that combines statutory data collection mandates, a competitively awarded grant program with programmatic prohibitions and required practices, and a study/reccomendation task force.
The bill strengthens federal data collection and reporting on exclusionary school discipline and funds competitive grants to reduce suspensions, expulsions, restraints, and other exclusionary practices.
Grants require schools to adopt restorative, trauma-informed, and culturally sustaining approaches, prohibit certain punishments (corporal punishment, seclusion, many restraints), and bar use of grant funds to hire school-based law enforcement or purchase surveillance.
It establishes a joint task force focused on ending pushout of girls of color and authorizes $500 million annually for grants and task force activities and $500 million annually for civil rights data collection.
Ambitious, costly, and ideologically salient program with controversial restrictions (SROs, surveillance, ICE partnerships); passage likely requires compromise or appropriation trade-offs.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy-change vehicle that combines statutory data collection mandates, a competitively awarded grant program with programmatic prohibitions and required practices, and a study/reccomendation task force. It is generally explicit about definitions, responsible agencies, reporting timelines, and grant program conditions.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights, anti-punitive, mental health benefits.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- SchoolsExpanded reporting and compliance obligations increase administrative burden and data responsibilities for districts an…
- Local governmentsRestrictions on disciplinary options may constrain local responses to certain serious behavioral or safety incidents.
- Local governmentsMandates and funding priorities could create tensions with state and local authority over school discipline policies.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights, anti-punitive, mental health benefits.
Likely strongly supportive: the bill targets racial and disability disparities, limits harmful practices, and funds trauma-informed alternatives.
It aligns with priorities on civil rights, ending corporal punishment, and expanding mental health supports in schools.
Cautiously supportive but pragmatic: values data and alternatives to exclusionary discipline, while concerned about costs, operational details, and unintended safety tradeoffs.
Wants phased implementation, clear metrics, and protections for school safety.
Likely opposed: views the bill as federal overreach into local school discipline and school safety, particularly restricting law enforcement presence and limiting disciplinary tools for misbehavior.
Concerns about costs and undermining teacher authority.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Ambitious, costly, and ideologically salient program with controversial restrictions (SROs, surveillance, ICE partnerships); passage likely requires compromise or appropriation trade-offs.
- No Congressional Budget Office cost estimate included in text
- Extent of bipartisan support among education and law-enforcement stakeholders
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights, anti-punitive, mental health benefits.
Ambitious, costly, and ideologically salient program with controversial restrictions (SROs, surveillance, ICE partnerships); passage likely…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy-change vehicle that combines statutory data collection mandates, a competitively awarded grant program with programmatic prohibitions and requ…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.