Civic Literacy in Higher Education Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 9, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 10786 seeks to enhance civic literacy among U.S.-born college graduates by tying graduation to successful completion of the U.S. naturalization test, excluding proprietary institutions from this requirement.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to mandate that most institutions of higher education require U.S. citizen students (by birth) to pass the U.S. naturalization test as a condition for graduation. The test must be proctored by a faculty member and administered without books or notes, ensuring students demonstrate foundational knowledge of U.S. history, government, and English proficiency. Proprietary institutions are explicitly exempted from this new requirement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill addresses a perceived decline in civic knowledge among young Americans, ensuring that college graduates possess a fundamental understanding of U.S. history and government. They contend that requiring the naturalization test sets a clear, objective standard for civic literacy, preparing students to be informed and engaged citizens.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that this bill represents federal overreach into academic curricula, undermining institutional autonomy and potentially diverting resources from core educational missions. They might also contend that a standardized naturalization test is not an appropriate or comprehensive measure of civic engagement or understanding for native-born citizens, potentially creating an unnecessary barrier to graduation.
The bill is exceptionally short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its implications.
Section 2, amending Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a))
Mandating Naturalization Test for Graduation
This provision requires most colleges and universities to make passing the U.S. naturalization test a mandatory condition for U.S.-born citizen students to graduate from any program of study. The test, which covers U.S. history, government, and English proficiency, must be administered by a faculty member without any aids like books or notes. Proprietary institutions are explicitly exempted from this new requirement.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses concerns about declining civic knowledge, ensuring that all graduates have a baseline understanding of American governance and history. They believe it will foster a more informed citizenry and reinforce the value of civic education in higher learning.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision is an unnecessary federal intrusion into academic affairs, potentially burdening institutions with new administrative costs and diverting focus from specialized curricula. They may also argue that a single test is an inadequate measure of civic literacy and that it could disproportionately affect certain student populations.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the perceived need for enhanced civic literacy against concerns about federal overreach into educational autonomy and potential administrative burdens on institutions. It also raises questions about the appropriateness of using a naturalization test, designed for immigrants, as a graduation requirement for native-born citizens.
The specific content and format of the required test are not detailed in H.R. 10786 itself, but are instead defined by reference to the existing U.S. naturalization test requirements, which include English language proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government. Additionally, proprietary institutions are explicitly exempted from this new graduation requirement.
Section 2, referencing "section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423)" and "section 102(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965"
Why it matters:Referencing existing law is standard legislative practice for brevity and to leverage established definitions. The exemption for proprietary institutions is a specific policy choice that might be overlooked if a reader focuses only on the general requirement.
Case for: Referencing existing law streamlines the bill and ensures consistency with established federal standards for civic knowledge. The exemption for proprietary institutions might be argued as a way to reduce regulatory burden on a specific sector or acknowledge their distinct educational models.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external references makes the bill less transparent, requiring readers to consult multiple statutes to understand its full implications. The exemption for proprietary institutions could be seen as an arbitrary distinction that creates an uneven playing field or suggests a lower standard for students at those institutions.
Estimated impact: The impact is significant as it defines the *substance* of the new graduation requirement and delineates which institutions are subject to it.