To prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out Executive Order 14253.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Jackson, Jonathan L. [D-IL-1]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 28, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to defund and thereby nullify the operational impact of Executive Order 14253, which aims to shape the narrative around American history.
What it actually does
This bill explicitly prohibits the use of any federal funds to implement or carry out Executive Order 14253, which is identified as relating to "restoring truth and sanity in American history." By cutting off all federal funding, the bill would effectively halt any programs, initiatives, or activities that the Executive Order might have established or directed within federal agencies.
Proponents argue
Supporters of H.R. 10624 argue that Executive Order 14253 represents executive overreach, attempting to impose a particular ideological view of history using taxpayer money. They contend that historical narratives should be developed through academic discourse and local educational bodies, not through federal mandates, and that this bill reasserts Congress's constitutional power over appropriations.
Opponents contend
Opponents of the bill would likely argue that it undermines legitimate governmental efforts to correct historical inaccuracies or promote a more inclusive and accurate understanding of American history, as intended by Executive Order 14253. They might assert that federal leadership is necessary to address systemic issues in historical education or public discourse and that this bill is a partisan attempt to obstruct such efforts.
The bill text is exceptionally brief and clear, allowing for immediate comprehension of its core purpose.
Section 1
Prohibition on Federal Funds for Executive Order 14253
This section explicitly states that no money from the federal government can be used for any activities, programs, or initiatives that are part of Executive Order 14253. This effectively stops the Executive Order from being implemented or continued using federal resources, regardless of its original intent or scope, by cutting off its financial lifeline.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a necessary check on executive power, preventing the administration from using federal funds to promote a specific, potentially controversial, historical narrative. They believe it reasserts congressional control over appropriations and ensures taxpayer money is not used for ideologically driven initiatives.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision obstructs legitimate governmental efforts to address historical understanding and education, potentially stifling initiatives aimed at promoting a more accurate or inclusive view of American history. They may view it as a partisan attack on the executive branch's policy agenda and an attempt to prevent certain historical perspectives from being explored.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances congressional power over the purse against executive authority to set policy direction. It also highlights the tension between different interpretations of how American history should be taught or presented and the appropriate role of the federal government in that process.
The bill's entire operative text is a direct prohibition on federal funds for Executive Order 14253. The specifics of what Executive Order 14253 entails are not described within the bill itself, beyond its subject matter: "relating to restoring truth and sanity in American history."
Section 1
Why it matters:While it is standard legislative practice to reference existing legal instruments (like Executive Orders or statutes) without reprinting their full text, in this case, the Executive Order's subject matter is broad and potentially contentious. The lack of specific detail within the bill itself makes it challenging for a casual reader to immediately grasp the full implications without external research.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing the Executive Order by number and subject is sufficient for legislators and informed stakeholders, who can easily access the Executive Order's full text. This approach keeps the bill concise and focused solely on the prohibition of funds, rather than debating the merits of the Executive Order itself within the bill.
Case against: Critics might argue that the bill's brevity and reliance on an external document obscure the specific programs or initiatives that would be defunded, making it harder for the public to fully grasp the implications without additional research. This could be seen as a way to pass legislation with significant but opaque policy consequences.
Estimated impact: The impact is entirely dependent on the scope and funding of Executive Order 14253, which is unknown from the bill text. It could range from negligible to highly significant, affecting various federal agencies, educational institutions, and cultural programs.