Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 4, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to address the nation's aging and inadequate public school infrastructure by providing substantial federal funding and tax incentives, prioritizing high-need communities and promoting modern, energy-efficient, and safe learning environments.
What it actually does
The Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2026 establishes a comprehensive federal program to improve public school facilities through grants and tax credit bonds. It authorizes $20 billion annually for five years in direct grants to states, which are then distributed to high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) for construction, modernization, and health/safety upgrades. Additionally, it revives and expands existing tax credit bonds and creates a new School Infrastructure Bond program to provide further financing for school facility projects, including specific provisions for digital learning and addressing pyrrhotite damage.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical investment in the nation's future, addressing long-standing infrastructure deficits in public schools that disproportionately affect low-income communities and students of color. They contend that modern, safe, and healthy school facilities are essential for student learning, staff well-being, and community vitality. Furthermore, supporters highlight the bill's focus on green building practices, energy efficiency, and 'Buy American' provisions as beneficial for climate mitigation, job creation, and economic growth.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that school infrastructure is primarily a state and local responsibility, and this bill represents an overreach of federal authority into local educational matters. Concerns could be raised about the significant federal spending and tax expenditures, potentially increasing the national debt. Critics might also argue that the matching requirements could burden fiscally constrained states and that specific mandates (e.g., green building, Buy American, labor standards) could increase project costs or administrative complexity, potentially slowing down critical repairs.
The bill is moderately long and includes technical tax code amendments, requiring careful reading to understand its full scope and implications beyond the general grant program.
Title I, Sec. 102
State Allocations and Responsibilities for Public School Facility Grants
This section outlines how the $20 billion in annual appropriations for public school facility improvements will be allocated to states. States receive funds proportionally based on their share of Title I-A funding. States must develop a plan for using funds, create a publicly searchable database of school infrastructure, and establish regulations for health, safety, and performance. States are also required to provide a 10% match from non-Federal sources, though this can be waived if appropriations exceed $7 billion in a fiscal year, and must maintain their historical share of school facilities capital outlay.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that requiring state plans, data collection, and regulatory updates ensures a strategic, transparent, and effective use of federal funds, leading to long-term improvements in school infrastructure. The matching requirement encourages state investment, while the waiver provision offers flexibility during periods of high federal commitment.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the planning, database, and regulatory requirements impose significant administrative burdens and costs on states, potentially diverting resources from direct facility improvements. The matching requirement, even with a waiver, could be seen as an unfunded mandate or a disincentive for fiscally strained states to participate.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal goal of ensuring strategic investment and accountability with state autonomy and fiscal capacity. It aims to leverage federal funds to incentivize broader state-level reforms in school facility management, but this comes with increased administrative overhead and financial obligations for states.
Title I, Sec. 103
Need-Based Grants to Qualified Local Educational Agencies
This section directs states to award competitive grants to qualified local educational agencies (LEAs) using the allocated federal funds and state match. Eligibility is prioritized for LEAs with high numbers or percentages of low-income students and limited capacity to raise funds for school improvements. Priority is given to projects in schools serving high percentages of free/reduced-price lunch students, those posing severe health/safety threats, or those improving digital learning access in underserved areas. LEAs must submit applications detailing projects and a comprehensive 10-year facilities master plan.
Title II, Sec. 201 & 202
School Infrastructure Bonds and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds
This title revives and expands the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) program (Section 54E of the Internal Revenue Code) and creates a new 'School Infrastructure Bond' (SIB) program (Section 54BB of the IRC). QZABs, which provide tax credits to bondholders, are expanded to $1.4 billion annually and the private business contribution requirement is removed. SIBs provide a 100% tax credit to bondholders for interest payable, with a national limitation of $10 billion annually for 2027-2029. Both bond types can be used for purposes described in Title III, including digital learning, and projects financed by them are subject to prevailing wage requirements.
Title III, Sec. 301
Allowable Uses of Covered Funds
This section broadly defines how covered funds (grants and bond proceeds) can be used. Permitted activities include construction, modernization, renovation, major repairs, and new facility construction. Specific uses include decarbonization, improving energy/water efficiency, enhancing indoor air quality, reducing toxic substances (e.g., lead, asbestos, PFAS), ensuring drinking water safety, complying with accessibility standards, and improving instructional program spaces. Funds can also be used to improve digital learning access.
Title III, Sec. 302
Prohibited Uses of Covered Funds
This section specifies activities for which covered funds cannot be used. These include routine maintenance and minor repairs, facilities primarily used for athletic contests or events with admission charges, vehicles, and central offices or other facilities not primarily used to educate students. Additionally, funds are prohibited for public charter schools operated by for-profit entities or those leasing facilities from individuals or for-profit entities with management/governance roles in the school.
Title III, Sec. 305
Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Products
This section mandates that all iron, steel, and manufactured products used in projects funded by the bill must be produced in the United States. 'Produced in the United States' means that for manufactured products, the product was manufactured in the U.S. and over 60% of its components' cost are U.S.-sourced. For iron/steel, all manufacturing processes from melting to coating must occur in the U.S. The Secretary can waive this requirement if it's inconsistent with public interest, domestic products are unavailable or of unsatisfactory quality, or if it increases project costs by more than 25%.
Title VI, Sec. 601-604
Assistance for Repair of School Foundations Affected by Pyrrhotite
This title establishes a program for the Secretary of Education to make allocations to states, which then award grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) for repairing or replacing concrete school foundations damaged by pyrrhotite. Grants can cover future repair costs or reimburse agencies for costs incurred in the preceding five years. Eligibility requires demonstrating the school is 'pyrrhotite-affected' through professional engineering assessments. The federal share is up to 50%, with a state share of at least 40%. Funds are specifically for foundation repair/replacement and related activities, not for general school supplies or outbuildings.
The 10% state matching requirement for Title I grants is waived for fiscal years where more than $7,000,000,000 is appropriated to carry out Title I.
Sec. 102(c)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide flexibility in funding mechanisms, particularly when federal appropriations are substantial.
Case for: Proponents would argue this waiver provides crucial flexibility, especially in years of high federal investment, reducing the financial burden on states and ensuring that more federal funds can be deployed quickly without being held up by state matching challenges.
Case against: Critics might argue that waiving the matching requirement reduces state buy-in and commitment to the projects, potentially leading to less sustainable long-term investment from states once federal funding ceases.
Estimated impact: Potentially eliminates billions in required state matching funds if the full $20 billion annual appropriation is met, significantly increasing the federal share of project costs.
Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring prevailing wages), applies to projects financed with Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs) and the new School Infrastructure Bonds (SIBs).
Sec. 201(d) and Sec. 202(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to incorporate existing federal law by reference, rather than reprinting it, for projects receiving federal financial support.
Case for: Proponents argue that applying prevailing wage standards ensures that federal investments in school infrastructure create good-paying jobs and support local economies, preventing a 'race to the bottom' in wages for construction workers.
Case against: Opponents might contend that prevailing wage requirements increase the overall cost of construction projects, potentially limiting the number of projects that can be undertaken with the available funds.
Estimated impact: Affects the wages of thousands of construction workers on projects funded by QZABs and SIBs, potentially increasing labor costs for LEAs.
Prohibits the use of covered funds for public charter schools operated or managed by a for-profit entity, or if the school leases facilities from an individual or for-profit entity where that individual or an individual with a financial interest in the entity has a management or governance role in the school.
Sec. 302(b)
Why it matters:This is a specific policy carve-out reflecting a political stance on the use of public funds for private entities in education, rather than a technical detail.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents the diversion of public funds to private profit motives within the public education system and avoids potential conflicts of interest in facility leasing and management.
Case against: Critics argue this unfairly discriminates against a segment of public education, potentially denying infrastructure funding to students in charter schools that may serve high-need populations, regardless of their management structure.
Estimated impact: Excludes an unknown number of charter schools from receiving federal infrastructure funding, potentially impacting their ability to improve facilities.